THE late revolution in France is an event of the greatest impor­tance. It has employed the pens of several able writers. Not find­ing, however, in any of them those sentiments which I could alto­gether approve, I have been induced to publish my own.

There are two writers on the subject who have considerably en­gaged the attention of mankind, Mr. Burke and Mr. Paine. Mr. Burke, who is a man of considerable abilities and eloquence, has at­tacked the late revolution in France with a degree of acrimony which cannot surely be with reason defended. His observations upon the politics of France, where they are unconnected with re­ligion, are, it must be confessed, often sagacious and just. When­ever he speaks of religion, however, he shows, that if he is not alto­gether, he is, almost, a papist. He says in some parts of his works that he was educated amongst monks, and that he has a great re­spect for their character. His inclination to old religious establish­ments, shows itself very soon in his first pamphlet upon the subject of the late revolution, entitled "Reflections on the Revolution in France, &c." He attacks the celebrated Dr. Price for a sermon which he preached at the dissenting meeting house of the Old Jewry, London, on the 4th of November, 1789. The following passage in the sermon, which is worthy the pen of an apostle, is severely animadverted upon by Mr. Burke. Dr. Price says▪ "Those who dislike that mode of worship which is prescribed by public author­ity, ought, (if they can find no worship out of the church which they approve) to set up a separate worship for themselves, and by doing this, and giving an example of a rational and manly worship, men of weight, from their rank and literature, may do the greatest service to society and the world." See his sermon.

Mr. Burke says, "The hint given to lay divines of rank and lite­rature may be proper and seasonable, though somewhat new. If the noble seekers should find nothing to satisfy their pious fancies in the old staple of the national church, or in all the rich variety to be found in the well-assorted ware-houses of the dissenting congregati­ons, [Page 2]Dr. Price advises them to improve upon non-conformity; and to set up, each of them, a separate meeting-house upon his own particular principles. It is somewhat remarkable that this reve­rend divine should be so earnest for setting up new churches, and so perfectly indifferent concerning the doctrine which may be taught in them. His zeal is of a curious character. It is not for the pro­pagation of his own opinions, but of any opinions. It is not for the diffusion of truth, but for the spreading of contradiction."

Mr. Burke in many parts of his writings avows himself a strenu­ous advocate for a national established church. He, perhaps, would prefer the church of Rome; but where that cannot be established, would wish the church of England, from its being somewhat simi­lar. The church of Rome was established in France. The king of that country was called the eldest son of the church; and the Bastille, though the French would not allow it, was another inqui­sition. It is most certain that many persons have been sent to the Bastille for speaking and writing against the Roman-catholic reli­gion. They have suffered there the most cruel tortures. A con­finement alone there, however, was almost sufficient punishment for the worst crimes. As Mr. Burke is an advocate for the perpe­tual establishment of the Roman catholic church in France, because it has been established there several centuries, it may be useful to ex­amine the principles of this church, first, and then to make some observations upon the church of England. The Pope, the head of the Roman catholic church, we know from scripture, reason, and experience, to be the enemy of God and man. This language may appear ha [...]sh and violent to some, but if we investigate the matter with due care and attention, we shall find the language to be justified by truth. St. Paul in his second epistle to the Thesa­lonians says, that the day of Christ shall not come "except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition: who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be revealed in his time." Chap. 2. ver. 3—7. It is asserted by the celebrated Joseph Mede, and other learned writers, that the understanding Daniel's vision of the four Monarchies, is of great consequence to the interpretation of the sa­cred prophecies. Mr. Mede says, "The Roman empire to be the fourth kingdom of Daniel, was believed by the church of Israel, both before and in our Saviour's time, received by the disciples of the apostles, and the whole christian church for the first 400 years, without any known contradiction. And, I confess, having so good ground in scripture, it is with me, tantum non articulus fidei, little less than an article of faith." On the Apocalypse, page 899, and 900, Folio.

With this point allowed, which seems a fair datum, it will not be difficult to find, where, and, about what time, the man of sin arose. It was the Roman empire which withheld the man of sin from be­ing revealed. This was a doctrine adopted by Cyril, Chrysostom, Tertul [...]an, and other learned writers in the earlier ages of christianity. Daniel says, "the ten horns out of the fourth kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall arise after, and he shall be diverse from the first." Chap. 7. ver. 24. The Roman empire was [Page 3]shivered into a plurality of kingdoms, (as Mr. Mede expresses it) agreeably to the prophecy of Daniel, about the year 476. This is a circumstance generally allowed by historians and chronologists. It was some time after that the little horn, that the eleventh king of Daniel, arose. And this we may confidently pronounce to be the same character as St. Paul's man of sin, and that they both signify the pope of Rome. They do not mean the bishop of Rome before, but, after, the apostacy. St. Paul prophecies of a most deplorable secession from the faith, before the man of sin should be revealed. He alludes to the same character also in the first epistle to Timothy. "Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doc­trines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe, and know the truth." Chap. 4. ver. 1—4. It may be useful to dwell upon these prophecies of St. Paul, not only to confirm the faith of the christian, but to en­lighten the unbeliever. We shall find them most remarkably ful­filled. We shall find that the bishop of Rome did oppose and exalt himself, above all that is called of God, or worshipped; that, he sat in the temple of God, at God. Du Moulin in a work entitled "New bricks for the building of Babel," asserts that Cayer, a popish wri­ter, maintained, que le pape doit estre adorè, "that the Pope should be adored." Some have prayed to him "O thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us." The famous Ravaillac, who killed Henry the 4th of France, said "he yielded to the temptation which prompted him to kill the king, because he made war against God, in as much as the pope is God, and God the pope." See his trial at the conclusion of Sully's Memoirs. This was a language which Ravaillac borrowed from the Domini­cans, with whom he was probably too intimate. Others also have called the pope, "my Lord God the pope." The pope opposed and exalted himself above all that is called God, by selling indulgences for the most heinous crimes, and by this became eminently the Man of Sin. In the time of Luther, Tetzel a Dominican friar, was em­ployed by Pope Leo the tenth, to raise money by the sale of indul­gences. Leo was a great admirer of the arts, and extravagant in other gratifications. He contrived this expedient to fill his coffers, which were emptied by his expensive inclinations. He was with reason supposed to be a Deist. He secretly laughed at that religion which he openly professed. He spoke lies in hypocrisy, having his con­science seared with a hot iron. Tetzel published some discourses upon indulgences, in which he says "The souls confined in purgatory, for whose redemption indulgences are published, as soon as the mo­ney tinkles in the chest, instantly escape from that place of torment, and ascend into Heaven." He says "for twelve pence you may redeem the soul of your father out of Purgatory." These discour­ses have been since republished, and are now extant. This is asser­ted by the celebrated historian Dr. Robertson, in his history of Charles the Vth. Vol. 2, page 80 and 81, quarto. Seckendorf, a writer of great repute among the Protestants, gives the form of the absolution used by Tetzel, in which he says "May our Lord Jesus have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the merits of his most [Page 4]holy passion. And I by his authority, that of his blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and of the most holy Pope, granted and commit­ted to me in these parts, do absolve thee, &c. &c." Dr. Mosheim in that valuable work his Ecclesiastical History says that "Secken­dorf's incomparable history of Lutheranism contains facts which are taken from the most precious and authentic manuscripts and records, contained in the library of Saxe Gotha, and in other learned and princely collections." Some have called these proceedings of Tet­zel the fooleries of a private person, and therefore reflecting no dis­grace upon the court of Rome. This, however, can by no means be admitted, if we pay the least regard to the opinions of faithful and intelligent historians; for they declare that Tetzel was instiga­ted and directed in his conduct by the Pope himself. A book was afterwards published at Rome, under the authority of the Popes, called Taxa Cancellariae Romanae, and was translated into English under the title of "Rome a Great Custom-House for Sin." Dr. Robertson refers to the Franckfort edition of this work in 1651; and says "The officers of the Roman chancery published a book, containing the precise sum to be exacted for the pardon of every particular sin. A deacon guilty of murder, was absolved for twenty crowns. A bishop or abbot might assassinate for three hundred li­vres. An ecclesiastic might commit uncleanliness, though with the most aggravating circumstances, for a third part of that sum." See History of Charles the Vth. Vol. 2, page 105, quarto, and the various authorities cited in that page. This price-current, as it has been wittily called, has been often altered, from the caprice of the Popes, or from an alteration in the value of money. It has been contended by catholic writers that the church of Rome does not signify by indulgences the permission or the forgiveness of sins, but a releasement from canonical penances, after sincere repentance, and the sacrament of penance. Cardinal Bellarmine, who wrote several volumes in folio upon the principles of the Roman catholics, and was esteemed among them a pillar of orthodoxy, says of the Pope, sed in poenam purgatorii, immo etiam in poenam eternam Gehennae, sine dubio potestatem habet, saltem consequenter & indirecte, quia dum absolvit per sacramentum poenitentiae, a culpâ lethali, liberat consequenter hominem a debito poena sempiternae; & in eodem mo­do dum per indulgentias absolvit hominem a poenitentiâ injuctâ vel injungenda, absolvit eundem consequenter a poenâ purgatorii, quam is luiturus esset, si cam poenâ non explevisset, vel ab eâ absolutus non fuisset. Bellarm. de Indulgentiis, Lib. 1. Cap. 6.

"He indisputably has power over the torments of purgatory, and over the eternal torments of hell, at least consequently and in­directly, because while he absolves, by the sacrament of penance, from mortal sin, he consequently secures from the pains of eternal punishment; and in the same manner, when by indulgences he ab­solves a man from penance, enjoined, or to be enjoined, he conse­quently absolves the same man from the pains of purgatory, which he would suffer, if he had not satisfied them by penance, or had not been absolved from them." The cardinal says here that the Pope by indulgences can absolve from the sacrament of penance, and the pains of purgatory. This surely is more than a releasement from canonical penances. In short, the truth seems to be this, the for­mer doctrines about indulgences, which were esteemed orthodox, [Page 5]are so monstrously absurd, that some modern defenders of the Ro­man catholic church are willing, [...]hen speaking of them, to deny, or to e [...]ade, wherever they can. That St. Paul means the church of Rome, by what he says in the first epistle to Timothy, as well as by what he says in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, is what every impartial and intelligent person must allow. He says, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats. These circumstances seem characteristic of, peculiar to, the Roman Catholic Church. It is said in a Roman catholic catechism, which was printed at Dub­lin, in 1782. " Q. How many are the commandments of the church? A. Six. Q. Say the six commandments of the church. A. 1. To hear mass on sundays and holy days. 2. To fast and ab­stain on the days commanded. 3. To confess our sins at least once a year. 4. To receive at Easter or thereabout. 5. To pay tithes to our pastors. 6. Not to solemnize marriage within forbidden times or forbidden degrees of kindred." See lesson 25. It has been as­serted by the defenders of the Roman catholic church that the for­bidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, are not peculiar to them; for that several sects in the early ages of christi­anity maintained the same doctrines. It is to be observed, how­ever, that St. Paul refers to the latter times; and it may reason­ably be concluded that he alludes to the same seceders from the faith who were to arise after the Roman empire should be divided, and the man of sin should be revealed. There is now no sect of chris­tians, excepting the Roman catholics, who forbid to marry, and command to abstain from meats. It is at particular times that they forbid the laity, and, at all times, the priests, to marry. The pro­testants contend that it is unreasonable to debar the clergy from marriage, because some of the apostles were actually married men. St. Paul says "marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefi­led." By saying that those who administer the gospel should not marry, the papists reflect upon the conduct of those apostles who had wives, and are altogether inconsistent and absurd. The famous Cardinal Bellarmine makes a curious argument against marriage, by a bewildered interpretation of a passage in the Revelation of St. John. I call it a bewildered interpretation, though I allow in ma­ny respects the talents, the learning, and above all the elegant Latin, of the Cardinal. He says the locusts in the ninth chapter of Revela­tions, who are represented as coming out of the bottomless pit, with a smoke, and darkening the sun and air, are the Lutherans. He says a locust is a greedy devouring animal, like a Lutheran, not temperate like a Catholic; and that when men indulge themselves in meats and luxurious living, they are naturally provoked to the incontinence of marriage. In this he meant to arraign the conduct of Luther, who eat meat, without regard to particular days or times of the year, and who married a nun. Though I do not think that all the religious opinions of Milton are orthodox, yet I admire his sentiments upon the legality of marriage to all mankind, as he says,

[Page 6]And again he says of marriage,

The papists say, that the following passage in the first epistle to the Corinthians is impro [...]ly translated. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" See chap. 9. ver. 5. ^* If the learned reader, however, will examine the original Greek, he will find the translation to be altogether just and unexceptionable. As futile and as erroneous are the objections of the papists to the translation of the following passage, in the same epistle of St. Paul, "it is better to marry than to burn." Chap. 7. ver. 9. St. Paul tells us that St. Peter was a married man. The Pope, by saying that no ministers of the gospel should marry, reflects upon the con­duct of his pretended predecessor. I will allow, however, that in some cases St. Paul recommends to a minister of the gospel, if he has the gift of continence, not to marry. The Roman catholics de­vote all their priests to celibacy, whether they have or have not the gift of continence. Some of their writers, however, say that they recommend to none to become priests except they have the gift of continence. In fact, though, the incontinence of their priests has been so great as to become proverbial. I appeal to history and expe­rience. It is not only the clergy that they have confined to the single life, but a vast body of monks and nuns. In France their number was prodigious. The consequence of this was that it hap­pened to multitudes of those who were secluded from marriage, as it happened to many of the Gentiles before the propagation of the gospel, whom, (to use the words of the apostle) "God gave up [Page 7]unto vile affections; for even the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward ano­ther, men with men working that which is unseemly." Romans i. 26, 27.—It would be ungenerous and unreasonable to say that all the Roman catholics who have been unmarried have been addic­ted to irregular or unhallowed lusts. Some have known to possess themselves "in sanctification and honour." Yet the system which indiscriminately devotes millions to celibacy is cruel, and wicked; and they, whoever they are, that defend it, are not without fault. The monasteries and nunneries in France, like those in other parts of the world, were the nurseries of sloth and vice. They were filled with a set of people, the determined enemies of their coun­try, from their determined resolution to continue the ecclesiastical tyranny which was exercised over it. At the time of the reforma­tion in Scotland, the celebrated preacher John Knox, who was a son of thunder, used to say that the best way of clearing the king­dom from the Romish priests, was to destroy their monasteries and abbeys, "that if their nests were destroyed, the rooks would soon leave the country." In the time of Knox, the protestants in Scot­land went further than is now necessary in France; they demolished the very buildings of the Roman catholic societies. The same ad­vantage may be gained by converting the building of a monastery to a new use, as by its actual demolition. When however the es­tate and property belonging to it are seized, and its old inhabi­tants are turned out, they should not be left to perish, but should have a proper annuity regularly paid to them. The mischiefs which were often produced in society by the prevention of priests from marriage, may be seen in the history of the celebrated Abelard and Eloisa. He seduces her, but is willing to marry her. She dis­suades him from marriage, lest it should prevent his preferment in the church, and says expressly (see her letters) that she would ra­ther be his mistress than his wife. Mr. Pope, in that pernicious poem which he has produced on the subject, with no injustice to her character, represents her wickedly saying,

It is the well known doctrine of the church of Rome, that a priest had better commit fornication than marry. Bellarmine says that marriage is worse than fornication in a priest, because it renders him unable to keep the vow which he has sworn to maintain; red­dit eum inhabilem ad votum servandum.—See Bellar. De Mona­chis, Lib. 2. Cap. 24.—

Such a doctrine as this has a tendency to fill the world with whores and sons of whores. The new constitution of France, I [Page 8]therefore think to be commendable in declaring that "the law no longer recognizes religious vows, or any other engagements contra­ry to natural rights."

I suppose it will be acknowledged by all mankind that the Roman catholics command to abstain from meats. This is done in opposi­tion to the express direction of St. Paul, who says in the tenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake." If we apply to the English dictionary, we shall find the explanation of shambles to be "a butchery, a place to buy meat at." In objection to this, however, it may be said, that the Ro­man catholic church only forbids the use of meat on certain days, and not on every day. Here again St. Paul will answer for us, who says in the epistle to the Colossians, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day." The Roman catholics in some countries have burnt, or otherwise put to death, men for eating a goose or a bit of bacon on a fast-day They have burnt persons for having the Lord's prayer, or the ten commandments, in their mother-tongue. The celebrated Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, is an advocate for "the exercise of the sword in matters of religion and conscience" and says it is "A thing which in truth cannot be called in question, without enervat­ing and as it were maiming the power of the legislature. So that there cannot be a more dangerous illusion than to fix suffering for a characteristic of the true church." See the end of his second vo­lume of avertissements against Jurieu. The Roman catholic mis­sionaries in Abyssinia, upon some opposition said, we must raise a civil war to promote our religion. In short, it would almost freeze the heart with horror, and almost fill the world with books, if we were to tell of the cruelties and murders with which the papists, through a misguided zeal, have vexed and polluted all the countries of the world. If we consider these circumstances, we shall find that the man of sin foretold by St. Paul, as well as the eleventh king of Daniel, who was to "wear out the saints of the Most High" and the persecuting character described by St. John in the Revela­tion, all signify the Pope of Rome. St. John represents his cha­racter under the emblem of a who [...]e, drunken with the blood of the saints, and seated on seven mountains. And again he says "and the woman, which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth." See Revelation, chap. 17. ver. 18. It is well known to those who have read the Latin authors that they call Rome the city of seven hills.—Martial, among others, writes to this purpose, and says,

It was for a long time denied by the Roman catholic writers that St. John, in this passage, which we have just quoted, meant Rome. The most learned of them have for some time, however, acknowledged that Rome is here signified, (see on this subject the celebrated Durham on the Revelation, Page 667) and confessed [Page 9]that they could make no other interpretation. Some apply the prophecy to heathen Rome, and some to what Rome suffered under the Goths. That it cannot mean heathen Rome is most certain, because St. John says that he, is to foretell things which were to come to pass after the time he was writing. St. John, cannot be supposed to be an historian who was to relate past events. The prophecy in this chapter of Revelation cannot re­late to what Rome suffered under the Goths, because it is said that those empires which should destroy the papal power, should be those which had formerly supported it. See verses 16 & 17 of this chap­ter. The Goths had never supported it. France, as well as every other power which has supported it, will before long, (if the pro­phecies of Daniel and St. John are true ^*,) agree to accomplish its total extirpation.

It appears from scripture, that though the patience of the saints was for a long time to be exercised in bearing the tyranny of the court of Rome, yet they are at last commanded to resist her by force. "Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double." Revelation, chap. 18. ver. 6. It has been sup­posed by many persons who are of the peaceable sects of christi­ans, that the papal power is at last violently to be abolished, but they can scarcely believe that the work is to be done by the saints. We shall be convinced, however, of this truth, if we attend to the preceding words in this chapter. It is said "come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins." See verses 4 & 5. Those therefore who do not partake of her fins, namely the people of God, are to be among the executioners of this predicted wrath.

It is difficult to eradicate from the minds of Roman catholics the prejudice that their church is the true, because it is the most antient. St. Paul, as we have mentioned, prophecies of a most deplorable falling away, and departing from the faith; and this happened with the bishops of Rome. For the doctrines inculcat­ed by them about the conclusion of the sixth century were directly opposite to the doctrines of the apostles. The Roman catholics have violently contended that Peter was superior to his brethren, that he was the prince of the apostles. This was a doctrine to which our Saviour expressly mentions his strong dislike. He says to his disciples, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exer­cise dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise authori­ty upon them. But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister". Matth. 20.25, 26. It is true he says to Peter, that he is the rock upon which be will build his church, and that he will give unto him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Yet we cannot reasonably suppose that he meant to exalt Peter above his brethren, for he tells them to call no man master. These expressions were applicable to each of the apostles, excepting Judas. If, however, we were to six on any one apostle as superior to the rest, it would not be Peter. St. Paul says that he laboured more abundantly than all. St. John seems to [Page 10]have approached our Saviour more in purity of mind than Peter, and to have been more beloved by him. He at his crucifixion recommends to John to consider his mother as his own. John used to lie in his bosom when they were at table, and to have more of his ear when living than the rest. To John he gave the Revelation which God had given to him, which with the Gospel he wrote, go further (though great respect should be had to the latter zeal of Peter) towards building up his church, than Peter's two epis­tles. Some doubt whether St. Peter ever was at Rome. If he was there, he was not bishop of the place. If he had been bishop, however, it is immaterial to the cause of the pope. It does not signify whether or not a man is successor in the place where St. Peter was bishop, if he teaches a different doctrine. If he was an angel from heaven, and in that place, he would be accursed under such circumstances. St. Peter and the apostles taught that mar­riage was honorable in all men, whether ministers of the gospel or not. The pope says that no clergyman, whether he has the gift, of continence or not, should marry. The binding a minister of the gospel by a vow not to do what is lawful to every man, is as wicked as tyrannical. The apostles say we may eat meat on eve­ry day of the week. The pope has said that we should be b [...]rnt and damned if we eat it on certain days. The apostles were con­tented with little, and propagated the gospel "without money, and without price." The popes riot in every luxury, and will violently take the goods of others. I scarcely know in what points the bishops of Rome imitate their pretended predecessor St. Peter, except that they curse and swear [...] he did when he denied his master. In cursing and swearing, they outdo Peter, and all man­kind. On a day, which they call Maundy Thursday, they curse (or they used to curse) all the good people in the world; and I do believe, if ever these hallowed pages should reach Rome, that neither they not their pious author would be secluded from the common execration. In the old and new testaments we are frequently com­manded to avoid idolatry. The apostles represent it as a crime of the first magnitude, and that those who commit it have no place in the kingdom of heaven. The decalogue says "Thou shalt not make to thee any graven image—thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." The council of Trent says "that images should have due honor and worship given them for those they represent; as not only putting off the hat, but falling down before them." And the Roman catechism says that "images should be worship­ped." This conduct of the papists is so flagrantly and palpably contradictory to that part of the decalogue which I have quoted; that they have thought it prudent in their common prayer books to print the decalogue without this part of it. This is an indisputa­ble fact, and can be proved at once by an appeal to the liturgies of the church of Rome, to liturgies printed under the authority of the pope. The plea, that this was done for the sake of brevity, is altogether unsatisfactory, as the whole of the decalogue is but short, and every part is of the greatest importance. The papists call the vir­gin Mary the queen of heaven, regina coeli, laetare, alleluiah. This is an expression borrowed from the idolatrous language of the hea­thens. They pray to her sometimes as to a deity, and not as to a [Page 11]mediator or intercessor. Their prayers to the virgin Mary as an intercessor, are incessant and innumerable; notwithstanding what St. Paul has said that "there is one God, and one Mediator be­tween God and Man." 1 Timothy, 2; 5. They have "the rosa­ry of the blessed Virgin, and the litany of our lady of Loretto." They call the virgin Mary our Lady of Loretto, because, as they say, some angels took the house, in which she lived in the holy land, to Loretto, in Italy. The Roman catholics also (I defy contra­diction for I write with their prayer book before me) pray to St. Fabran and St. Sebastian, to St. Gervase, and St. Protase, to St. Beroard, and St. Dominick, as intercessors. I like the praying to St. Dominick the least of all their prayers, because I think him one of the worst men that ever existed. It is scarcely necessary to mention to men of any reading that he is commonly called the founder of the ^* Inquisition. The praying therefore to him, indi­cates that a l [...]st for the erection of the inquisition in all countries of the world is not quite extirpated from the minds of some men. I hope too many do not think with Cardinal Bellarmine, that this scourge of the human race (of whose mother we may say, as Ci­cero finely says of the mother of Mark Anthony when she produc­ed him, O miserae mulieris fo [...]cunditatem calamitosam!) indisputa­bly performed miracles. I will mention another instance of the idolatry of the Roman catholics. At the elevation of the host they say "Most adorable body, I adore thee with all the powers of my soul." Some of the popish writers acknowledge, that if the real presence was not contained in the sacrament, their church would be guilty of as gross idolatry as ever was practised, by the hea­thens. As this is a matter of great importance. I will make some further observations upon it. It may be proved by arguments as convincing to a candid mind as mathematical demonstration, that the real presence is not contained in the sacrament, and therefore that the papists are flagrant idolators. In the creed of Pi [...] 4th. before his elevation to the papal chair, which by Roman catho­lics is thought the essence of orthodoxy, it is said "I do profess that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, there is troly, really and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is a con­version made of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood; which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation." Some protestant writers have used as strong an argument against transub­stantiation, as can be used against any error whatever. It is obvious to every one, it cannot be controverted, that our Saviour his self [Page 12]instituted the sacrament? Now say the protestants, could he eat his own body, and drink his own blood? If the bread had by our Saviour been converted into flesh, and the wine into blood, it is reasonable to suppose that his disciples would have made some scruples about eating human flesh, and drinking human blood. His disciples were Jews, who by the law were strictly commanded not to taste the blood even of those animals whose flesh they eat. And it is the custom of the Jews at this day, to squeeze the meat which they eat till it is altogether free from blood. If therefore the disciples did not hesitate in any man­ner at taking the sacrament in the way it was administered by their Lord, we have a right to conclude that they thought him speak­ing figuratively and not literally, when he called the bread his body and the wine his blood, as when he called himself a door and a vine. The apostles, after the death of our Saviour, agreed that the con­verted Gentiles were not to be bound to circumcision, but were to "keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." It christians are to abstain from the blood of a beast, should they be allowed to drink the blood of a man? If the bread in the sacrament is converted into the real body of Christ, should not we expect to see a body distinguishable by head, and hands, and feet, instead of a round mass of bread? If an experiment were made upon common and what is called consecrated bread and wine, would they not grow mouldy and sour in the same proportion of time? That there is a conversion, in the manner Roman catholics contend, in the sa­crament, implies the power in the worst of men of working a mira­cle, whenever they please. The candid part of them must allow that some of their clergy and some of their popes have been pollut­ed with every vice of which human nature is capable; that (accord­ing to the expression of the prophet) from the sole of the foot, even unto the head, there has been no soundness, but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores. And I will allow that some of the clergy, as well as the laity, of their communion, have been remarkable for their virtues. Who can read the works of the celebrated Prince of Conti without being struck with his many amiable virtues? He contends against the immoral tendency of the stage with the purity of a primitive christian. St. Paul says in his se­cond epistle to the Thessalonians that some of those who followed "the man of sin, were to follow him with the deceivableness of unrighteousness." By which phrase, I conceive he meant, that they were to suppose themselves doing right when doing wrong. To re­turn to my observations relative to transubstantiation, I think it has been well observed that God made man, but man can never make God. It is most certain that the popish priests blasphemous­ly and wickedly say that the bread which they have consecrated is God, that it has the power of working miracles, a power which i [...] irresistible. I have a curious pamphlet in my possession "The school of the Eucharist" written by a Jesuit, and published, with license, in Fren [...], at Lille, in 1672. It was afterwards publish­ed in English, by Dr. Clagett, in 1687. In the preface, the Je­suit calls the hereties hair-brained people for denying the real pre­sence in the sacrament, and says that as they have renounced their reason, he will send them to "school to the beasts" who have ac­knowle [...]ged this truth. He gives a multitude of instances from [Page 13]various popish authors, of different animals having bowed down and otherwise paid respect, to the holy sacrament. Among other instances he says, " A fox quits the hen he had carried away by virtue of the holy sacrament. St. Gregory the pope tells us that St. Boniface, whilst he was a young child, standing at the door of his lodging, he perceived a fox running away with a hen in his mouth. Immediately away he went to the church, and placing himself before the holy sacrament, he made this prayer to it. "Lord, I beseech thee to preserve the pullen which my mother feeds in her back yard, for the sustenance of her little family." Having done this he returned to his lodging, where this fox appeared again with the hen in his mouth, and laying down the hen, fell down dead at the feet of this child. S. Gregor. Dialog. lib. 1." If this be not idolatry, if this be not worshipping as God, a thing which we have made with out hands, I know not where we can find idolatry.

Such being the principles of the Roman catholics, I cannot agree with Mr. Burke that it was impious and wicked in the French to overthrow their church. Mr. Burke makes frequent and bitter lamentation through all his pamphlets relative to the French revo­lution, for the destruction of this church. It was therefore perti­nent, it was ad rem, when treating of the revolution, to mention the principles of the Roman catholic church. A great deal of the question relative to the propriety or impropriety of the revolu­tion, is involved in the question, whether the Roman catholic re­ligion is true or not. It is agreed by all protestant commentators of note upon the prophecies (among whom we may reckon Sir Isaac Newton and Joseph Mede) that the Roman catholic church is to continue 1260 years ^* Many learned commentators on scripture suppose these 1260 years are nearly expired. If their suppositions be just, the French revolution is the precursor to the total and final extirpation of the papal power, and has been brought about by divine appointment that the prophecies may be fulfilled.—In say­ing this, however, I would not wish to be understood as meaning that the whole of this matter has been effected by hallowed hands. It is a judicious observation of Sir Isaac Newton that the Almighty will suffer infidelity as well as true religion at last to extirpate the errors and abominations of popery.—God may sometimes execute his wrath by his children, or he may make the wicked sometimes the instruments of that wrath. He may execute his wrath some­times by the means of both.—Mr Burke seems to have a violent prepossession in favor of the Roman catholic religion, which has misled his judgment relative to the French revolution. He says in his letter to the archbishop of Aix "your church, the intelli­gence of which was the ornament of the christian world in its prosperity, is now more brilliant in the moment of its misfor­tunes, to the eyes who are capable of judging of it." And again Mr. Burke says in the same letter "maintain, Sir, the courage which you have hitherto shown; and be persuaded that though the world is not worthy of you and your colleagues, we are not all insensible to the honor which you do to our common nature." I think it would be difficult for a professed catholic to say any thing more decisive in favor of his religion. These colleagues of the [Page 14]archbishop of Aix, of whom the world is not worthy, were (however amiable in some respects in private life) the supporters of the most pestilent superstition that the world ever saw.—A part of this horrible system of superstition I have described in the pre­ceding pages. To describe more would be inconvenient in a work like this.—Mr. Burke seems to imagine that all the opposition to the religious establishment in France has proceeded from atheism or from deism, that it has been made "in a drunken delirium from the hot spirit drawn out of the alembick of hell."—The opposition to the religious establishment was unitedly made by de­ists and by christians. Mr. Rabaut de St. Etienne on the follow­ing motion which was made by the Comte de Caftellane in the Na­tional Assembly "no man shall be molested for his opinions, or in­terrupted in the exercise of his religion," says that his constitu­ents "are a jurisdiction (senécha [...]ssée) of three hundred and six­ty thousand inhabitants, of whom more than one hundred and twenty thousand are protestants." He says in the same speech, that there are two millions of protestants in the kingdom of France.—Messieurs Condorcet and Peysonnel compute the protes­tants to be three millions.

Mr. Burke appears to be an obstinate advocate for a church esta­blishment. He says in his first pamphlet on the French revolution "First I beg leave to speak of our church establishment, which is the first of our prejudices, not a prejudice destitute of reason, but involving in it profound and extensive wisdom. I speak of it first. It is first, and last, and midst in our minds. For taking ground on that religious system, of which we are now in possession, we continue to act on the early received, and uniformly continued sense of mankind." And again he says "the consecration of the state, by a state religious establishment, is necessary also to operate with a wholesome awe upon free citizen [...]." A church establishment im­plies that men should preach the gospel for hire, and that the clergy have a right to collect tithes from the people. Which things are expressly forbidden by the gospel. Our Saviour said to his disciples "freely ye have received, freely give." St. Paul says that "these hands have ministered to my necessities." The mak­ing a bargain before-hand for what a man shall receive for preach­ing, the making it a profession whereby he is to obtain a livelihood, has no foundation in christianity. The tithes by which the clergy are supported, are forbidden in the new testament, and are injuri­ous to liberty, and to agriculture, which is one of the noblest and most beneficial employments to mankind. St. Paul says (speaking of things under the Mosaic dispensation) "and verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people, according to the law." Hebrews, chap. 7. ver. 5. And soon after he says "for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken per­taineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood." Ver­ses, 12, 13, 14.—That the ministers of the gospel in the present day have a right to tithes, like the Levites of old, will appear by no means reasonable, if we consider the origin of tithes under the [Page 15]Mosaic Law. The levites were one of the tribes of Israel, and were to have tithes instead of a share of the land, which they had a right to in common with their brethren. The priests, who serv­ed at the altar, were allowed but a tenth part of the tithes. The nine other parts were allotted to the general body of the Levites, and to be kept for widows and strangers.—The clergy of our day who receive tithes, inherit, like other men, the possession of their ancestors, and some of them considerable estates, and yet will take the whole tithes, and give what they please, and perhaps but little to the widow and the stranger. Tithes and circumcision, parts of the old law, are equally ablished by the New Testament; and it would be as reasonable in the clergy to circumcise us by force, as to take our property for tithes in the same violent manner.—It is most certain that tithes were not demanded in the times of the pri­mitive christians, but were extorted by the papal power. Mon­tesquieu and other learned writers suppose that they were first in­troduced in the time of Charlemagne, about the year of our Lord 800. ^*—Clergymen who sue and oppress people for tithes, do not tread in the footsteps of the humble, modest, and generous apos­tles of our Lord, who asked nothing for the gospel which they preached, or if they happened to be in want, were contented with any little that might be given to them; but resemble more the false prophets mentioned by Micah, who prepared war against him, who would not put into their mouths. Persons, in various countries, have been rent from their families, and confined in a loathsome jail, for tithes, which they could not, or which their conscience would not let them pay. The celebrated quaker Robert Ba [...]lay, in his apology (which is worthy of being read by every man) says "several poor laboring men have been carried hundreds of miles from their own dwellings, and shut up in prison, some two, some three, yea, some seven years together, for the value of one pound sterling, and less. I know myself a poor widow that for the tithes of her goese, which amounted not to five shillings, was about four years kept in prison, thirty miles from her house."—Apology, page 339.—The injury to agriculture, by the extortion of tithes, con­consists in the temptation which is given to the farmer to neglect the improvement of his farm, lest it should tend to the benefit of his parson, whom he very often dislikes. If the parson is to receive a [...]enth from the improvement, it is but just, as has been frequent­ly observed, that he should pay something towards that improve­ment. In short, I think the National Assembly of France were wise in the abolition of tithes, as they are contrary to the principles of the gospel, as well as prejudicial to freedom and agricuture.

A state religious establishment has a mischievous effect introduc­ing a test, which tempts men to perjury, if they are dishonest, or which, if they are honest, deprives the commonwealth of the benefit of their talents. A religious test causes frequent emigra­tions from a country, and brings down numberless curses upon it. It favors of the the malignant spirit of popery, and is arrant per­secution. [Page 16]—The French constitution therefore wisely gave free li­berty to all men "of exercising the religious worship to which they were attached" and has wisely admitted men of all denomina­tions of religion to the offices of government. I think also that the French have been wise in making no political distinction be­tween a Jewish and a Christian citizen. I think that there should be no religious test whatever in government. Our Saviour said "My kingdom is not of this world." Those who demand an acknowledgment, that the New Testament was written by divine inspiration, before an admission to the offices of a commonwealth, say that his kingdom is of this world. They speak a language different from his. In this point they are not Christians.

I conceive it to be our duty as followers of Christ to extend our toleration to the Jews, without considering if it would, or would not tend, to the temporal advantage of the commonwealth in which we live. There cannot be a doubt, however, I should think with a reasonable man, but that it would tend to the present and imme­diate interests of a state. We are told by the apostles that the whole Jewish nation is to be converted to Christianity, that "all Israel shall be saved." I conceive that the drawing a political line of distinction between us and them has a tendency to prevent their conversion, that the unlimited toleration of them has a tendency to bring them over to the gospel, and therefore that the unlimited toleration of them is the cause of God.

In our conduct towards the Jews we should imitate St. Paul who says "unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews." He never insulted them in the manner that some who call themselves Christians insult them. One would suppose that the wan­ton abuse of them for their religious principles, would irritate their minds, would inflame them to a desire of revenge, and have a ten­dency to confirm them in their unbelief. They might from this entertain a disgust to the principles and the truth of the gospel, from the folly and wickedness of those who call themselves [...] friends. St. Paul addresses them with the tenderness of a parent towards his children. He says "my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." Our Saviour's mis­sion was at first intended only for the Jews. "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He laments with an affectionate and pleasing sensibility the invincible obduracy of the Jews. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee: how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! behold your house is left unto you desolate."—He shed tears over Jerusalem, when he reflected up­on her coming destruction. And when he was extended by the Jews upon the cross, with a patience that triumphed over scorn and over torture, he mildly says, (O admirable meekness! O godlike benevolence!) "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Those who wish to be the true disciples of our Saviour and of his apostles should endeavour to imitate them in this as in other matters. If it should be observed the prophets mention that the Jews were to be "scattered among all people" and were to be­come "a curse, and an astonishment, and a hissing, and a re­proach." I will answer that these prophecies refer to the time of [Page 17]the apostacy, from which dark and gloomy night, the glorious gospel of our Saviour is going to emerge as brilliant as the day­star.

The French have not led the Jews away captive. They should not wish them to sit down and weep by the waters of France, and to hang their harps upon the willows which grow therein.

The French nation will immediately reap an advantage from the naturalization of the Jews, from giving them the same political pri­vileges with others, in an increase of subjects attached to the new go­vernment which secures them these privileges. It is a childish ab­surdity to suppose, that where the Jews are naturalized, they will overrun, and be mischievous to, the country which naturalizes them. The learned Abbé Gregoire, who is in many respects an amiable man, and a friend to humanity, though he professes himself to be a Catholic, in his late curious Essay ^* on the Jewish Nation says, that there are at present about five millions of Jews in the world. If they were all to emigrate to France, and probably she will never see a fifth part of them at a time, what could they do, if they had hos­tile intentions, against twenty five millions of people? It is the part, however, of men who are persecuted, and not of men who are restored to equal rights with others, to bear hostile intentions. It is by justice, and humanity, and not by persecution, that a go­vernment secures itself. To do good to those who are governed, should be the object of every government, and it should be to the people what the poet says the river Nile is to Egypt,

The Jews are a high spirited nation. They may be led; but they will not be driven. We may make proselytes among them to the Christian faith by mildness and reason, but scarcely any sincere o [...]e [...] by violence and persecution.

Mr. Burke says of the English Nation, "They do not consider their church establishment as convenient but as essential to their state; not as a thing heterogeneous and separable; something added for accommodation; what they may either keep up or lay aside, accor­ding to their temporary ideas of convenience. They consider it as the foundation of their whole constitution, with which, and with every part of which, it holds an indissoluble union. Church and state are ideas inseparable in their minds, and scarcely is the one ever mentioned without mentioning the other." For my part I cannot see that the church establishment is essentia to the state. Other states have thriven without such a religious establishment, and therefore it is not necessary to England. That the English consti­tution merits high admiration, I shall endeavour to prove in the fol­lowing pages. I mean to defend the great outlines of it, an here­ditary monarch, with an hereditary nobility, and with an house of commons freely elected from the people, as a government suited to [Page 18]the genius of the people of England. Cicero says, "Statuo esse op­time constitutam rempublicam, quae ex tribus generibus illi [...], re­gali, optimo, & populari modice confusa." I do not know whether this be true, yet I think where there is a monarchy, the English con­stitution is an excellent plan of government. I cannot perceive, how­ever, how the exclusive establishment of the church of England is necessary to the English constitution. If we examine the liturgy of the church of England, we shall find that it has a considerable re­semblance to that of the church of Rome. Both liturgies have the creed of St. Athanasius. It is asserted, to the disgrace of human na­ture, at the conclusion of this creed, as it is printed in the Roman Catholic liturgy, "This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully and stedfastly he cannot be saved." And the liturgy of the church of England adopts it, but omits (in the way to re­formation) the word stedfastly. "This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved." The doctrine of the Trinity, as maintained in this creed, has not any foundation in scripture, and is an affront to reason. It is the opinion of the great Sir Isaac Newton, in his letters to Le Clerc, that the maintain­ing it as a point necessary to be believed, has considerably impeded the progress of Christianity. Calling the son of God, Almighty, and praying to him as if he were the Almighty, is erroneous. It is said in scripture "I am the Lord thy God—thou shalt have none other Gods but me." Exodus, 20. 2, 3. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." Deut. 6.4. "Lord God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath." 1 Kings, 8.23. "To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the holy one." Isaiah 40.25. "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me: that they may know, from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am the Lord and there is none else." Isa. 45.5, 6. "Thus saith the Lord thy redeemer, the holy one of Israel." Isa. 48.17. And I conceive, as has been asserted by the learned Dr. Clarke, that, in the sixth verse of the ninth chapter of this pro­phet, the words relating to Christ "everlasting father" should be translated "Father of the age to come." Vide "Clarke on the Attributes." Page 403. See also an admirable demonstration in this book that there could not originally be two omnipotent being. "And the Lord shall be king over all the earth. In that day there shall be one Lord, and his name one." Zechariah, 14.9. Thus much we read in the Old Testament. In the the New Testament we read that our Saviour prayed to the deity, which manifestly shows that he was inferior to and dependent upon him. He could not have given us an example of piety, if he had not been dependent upon God. He is jealous of their putting him upon the same rank with God. He expressly forbids it. He expressly mentions his in­feriority. "Why callest thou me good? There is none good, save one, that is God." Luke 18.19. "For my father is greater than I." John 14.28. This, however, is evaded by saying that reference is here made to the human, and not to the celestial nature of our Saviour. St. Paul, however, says of the Almighty "For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, [Page 19]then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." 1 Corinth. 15. 27, 28. The inferiority of our Saviour to his celestial nature is here clearly and unequivocally determined. He is not excepted from all which is put in subjection to God himself, at the consummation of all things. St. Paul says "There is none other God but one. For though there be that are called Gods, whether in Heaven or in Earth (as there be Gods many, and Lords many); but to us there is but one God, the father of whom are all things [...] and we in him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things [...] and we by him." 1 Corinth. 8. 4, 5, 6. And St. Paul says of our Saviour, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature.". Coloss. 1.15. Nor do I conceive that the passage in the Epistle to the Phillippians is contradictory to what the apostle says in other places. "Christ Je­sus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of Men. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him." Philipp. 2. 5, 6, 7, 9, For I conceive that we improperly translate the words, [...] in this manner, "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The Greek word [...] from [...] assimilo, signifies only similis, and therefore it would be more pro­per to translate the words thus "thought it not robbery to be like unto God." I think it will appear from the context (which it is always right to consider in our comments upon a passage in any author) the apostle did not mean to say that Christ was equal to God, in the strict sense of the word, that is, not in any point inferior, for he immediately afterwards says, "Wherefore God hath highly exalted him." It is obvious to common sense, th [...] it is impossible for one being to "exalt" another, who is in the [...]trict sense of the word "equal" to it.

Some have thought that the first part of the gospel of St. John is a plain and direct refutation of all this system of reasoning.—"In the beginning" has not so unlimited a sense as some should make us believe. We are told in the first part of Genesis that this world was made, "in the beginning." It must have been created, however, a vast length of time after the existence of the Almighty himself. "The word" by St. John is certainly called "God." But still our Saviour in my opinion is God of God, and not God of himself, [...] and not [...], according to the old learned phrase. He is said in this very first chapter of St. John to be "begotten of the father," which justifies my opinion. What is begotten cannot be originally self-existent.

We should be cautions, while we do not exalt our Saviour to a rank which is too high, that we do not improperly degrade him. He is not equal to the Almighty, but he is more than a man, and a pro­phet. It is said of our Saviour in the above mentioned chapter of St. John that "the world was made by him." The conception of Mary, was certainly miraculous. We are told in the first chapter of St. Luke. "Then said Mary unto the angel, how shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which [Page 20]shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God." Dr. Priestly, and those who would wish to consider the exordium of Luke and other passages in scripture, which mention the pre-existence of our Saviour, as interpolations, teach a very dangerous principle. By such a conduct we shall give an example to others to consider as ^* interpolations those passages of scripture which are inconsistent with their views and desires, and in the end make the scripture say what­ever we please. The passages in the New Testament, which speak of the superiority of our Saviour to common humanity, are so nu­merous, that it would be truly awful to get rid of them as interpo­lations. This, however, would not answer the purpose of those who degrade the illustrious Son and Minister of God. They must also get rid of some passages in the ancient Prophets. The follow­ing passage in Isaiah, which is acknowledged by all the Jews to be genuine, though they interpret it differently from us, and which can­not with any reason be suspected for an interpolation, is directly against those who would level our Saviour to the rank of a mere man. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Im­manuel." Chap. 7. ver. 14. Immanuel signifies God.—By this method of interpreting the scripture, which is fair and just, we ob­viate the objection, which is made by Jews and Mahometans, that Christians are idolators, for we inculcate the belief of one God, that is, of one self-existent and omnipotent God; though we ac­knowledge that be delegated a vast portion of his power to that Son whom he himself created.

Calling also the Holy Ghost, Almighty, and praying to it, as to the Almighty, is erroneous. The Holy Ghost, in the lan­guage of scripture, is nothing more than the Holy Spirit of God, that is, the influence of God. ( [...] spiritus sanc­tus, [...] ventus, from [...] spiro.) To call the spirit of God, God himself, to pray to the spirit of a being, instead of, and in derogation to, the being who bears that spirit, must be im­proper. In the liturgy of the church of Rome, in "the lita­ny of our lady of Loretto" we read "God the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us. God the son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.—God the Holy Ghost have mercy on us. Holy Tri­nity one God, have mercy on us." In the litany which is in the liturgy of the church of England, we read "O God the Father of Heaven, have mercy upon us miserable sinners. O God the Son, Redeemer of the World have mercy upon us miserable sin­ners. [Page 21]O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, have mercy upon us miserable sinners. O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God, have mercy up­on us miserable sinners." The doctrine of the Trinity has been borrowed, with other doctrines, from the church of Rome, by the church of England. The church of England also, in imitation of the church of Rome, inculcates that her priests have the pow­er of absolution. In the "visitation of the sick" in the liturgy of the church of England we read "Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his church to absolve all sinners, who truly re­pent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine of­fences; and by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In short, we have, according to an expressi­on of the late celebrated Earl of Chatham, "a Popish liturgy." If we examine the history of England also before the glorious re­volution under William the third, we shall find that the church of England followed the church of Rome in the path of persecution. Sewel, in his history of the Quakers, says, that before the revolu­tion, sometimes more than four thousand persons have been at one time confined in England for frequenting meetings, denying to swear, &c.—Their goods were seized; and they were often kept in cold nasty ground without straw, and for several days without victuals, through which multitudes immaturely perished.—In the times of Elizabeth, and of James the first, men were burned for sentiments which were contrary to the doctrines of the church of England, and esteemed heresy. It was at the revolution in 1688, when the dissenters were allowed to attend their several meeting­houses without the penalties of the law, and when the toleration of religious opinions was considerably enlarged. King William (whose memory deserves the highest affection and regard) wished, but could not obtain, a liberal toleration. When he came to the crown of England, he earnestly recommended the cause of the dissenters to the parliament and said, "while he doubted not they would suf­ficiently provide against Papists, he hoped they would leave room for the admission of all Protestants that were willing and able to serve." He added, "this conjunction in my service will tend to the better uniting you amongst yourselves, and the strengthening you against your common adversaries." Much certainly is yet wanting to be done for the salutary advancement of toleration. The force­ing those who are to be admitted into the offices of government, previously to take the sacrament according to the ceremonies of the church of England, ^* is what will bring the judgments of Heaven upon the nation. St. Paul says "for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are sickly among you, and many sleep." 1 Corinth. 11. 29, 30.

Mr. Burke in his indignation, against the prevailing deism in France, should have reflected that this has been greatly occasioned [Page 22]by the absurd and pernicious doctrines of the Roman Catholics. Burnet says, in his life of Lord Rochester, that this libertine no­bleman, who converted to Christianity by considering the 53d. chapter of Isa [...]an, confessed that his sceptical notions had been con­siderably produced by seeing the clergy of England. There are other deists who might say the same thing with Lord Rochester. If we consider the bishops in England, we shall sometimes find that instead of resembling the meek, virtuous, and humble apostles of our Lord, they are proud, ambitious, hard-hearted, and bear a greater resemblance to Dives who "was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptously every day." If the clergy in England could thus make men deists, what must have been done by the clergy in France? It was a saying of the celebrated Dr. Ogden of Cambridge to a wo­man who was admiring the young clergy "Ah! madam, if you had been at the shop where the ware is made, you would have less respect for it." I have been at this shop (the University of Cam­bridge) and think the doctor's observation contains much truth; for a set of more debauched, profligate, and deistical men, than the young clergy there, are with difficulty to be met with. I speak generally, for some of the clergy of the church of England have been men of great virtues, as well as eminent talents and learning. The names of Clarke, Tillotson, Hoadly, Burnet, Barrow, ^* Wat­son, Portens, Hurd, will be for ever mentioned with regard. And there are many private members of the church of England, of great purity of intention, benevolence of heart, and regularity in com­mon life.

It is highly to be lamented that the English will not admit of a general toleration. The late Lord Chatham, who was the best statesman, perhaps, that the coontry ever knew, though it has pro­du [...]d many of great ability, says in a letter to Dr. Price. "In writing to you, it is impossible the mind should not go of itself to that most interesting of all objects to fallible man—toleration. Be assured, that on this sacred and unalienable right of nature, and bul­w [...]rk of truth, my warm wishes will always keep pace with your own. Happy, if the times had allowed us to add hopes to our wishes!" How imperfect in this respect is the character of the pre­sent minister, Mr. Pitt, to that of his enlightened and virtuous fa­ther! The present minister has always opposed the admission of dissenters to the offices of government, and contended, with a spi­rit of persecution similar to that of Popery, that none have a right to them but who are of the church of England. In this he has ap­peared as unjust as he was great and commendable in his very judi­cious contention for the abolition of the slave trade and for a refor­mation in parliament. From this latter scheme, however, he has unhappily for himself and for his country apostatized. His cele­brated rival Mr. Fox, with equal talents, has contended for the abo­lition of the slave trade, and now contends for the reformation of parliament, and for toleration of the dissenters. If a dereliction of his irregularities in private life which has been begun should be car­ried [Page 23]on, and the same wise political principles should continue with him, he will in all probability be raised by the voice of the people to the chief office in the ministry. It was lamentable to see a man, who was frequently exerting gigantic talents to save the state, as ill-attended almost in private life as Cataline who wished to over­throw it. Quis Ganeo (says the Roman orator) quis Nepos, quis Adulter, quae Mulier infamis, quis Corruptor Juventutis, quis cor­ruptus, quis perditus inveniri potest, qui se cum Catilinâ non fa­miliarissimè vixisse fateatur? In short, the characters, though conse­quential of the present Mr. Pitt, and of Mr. Fox, both appear im­perfect. They are not like the full-orbed character of the late Lord Chatham, who was equally moral in private as wise in public life. There was something in my opinion of a divine Afflatus about him. Cicero says, "Nemo vir unquam magnus fuit sine divino A [...]atu."

PART II.

I WILL consider whether the constitution of England, with just amendments, would have been a proper model of government for France at this time. I am decidedly of opinion that it would.

I will first consider whether it would have been wise in the peo­ple of France, at this time to preserve their monarchy; and after that, whether it would have been wise to preserve their nobility, and to form their new government upon the great outlines of the En­glish constitution.

It has been urged by the writers against monarchy, that it is a system of government reprobated in scripture. I call it a system of government, in conformity to the opinion and expression of all learn­ed writers on government, notwithstanding an absurd expression used by Mr. Paine, that it is a nullity of system. It is a word formed from the composition of two Greek words [...] and [...] and signifies a government, or rather the executive part of it, in the hands of one man. In this latter sense it is used by Montesquieu. The monarchy which is reprobated in the first book of Samuel, is an absolute monarchy. Samuel tells the people of Israel that your monarch "will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive­yards, even the best of them, and will give them to his servants." And again he says "He will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants." This is in no respect such a monarch as the constitution of England designed the king of that country. The King of England can take no man's field, or his vineyard, or the tenth of his sheep, at his pleasure. It is fact, which fell within my own knowledge, that a wealthy and capricious old woman for a con­siderable time refused to sell, notwithstanding repeated entreaties, a spot of ground which she possessed, to the present king, which [Page 24]he wished to purchase at a high price, that he might add it, to his gardens at Richmond. There are instances of the king of England being sued, as a private person would be sued, in the English courts of law. Bracton the old lawyer says that in England "The pow­er of the king is the power of the law." Some of the kings of En­gland have been fond of calling themselves "the great servant of the commonwealth of England." And though it may be urged, that James the first, in particular, who used this appellation, was him­self too fond of arbitrary power; yet it serves to show, that he would sometimes utter a language to please those who were the rational admirers of the English constitution. To return to the argument relative to monarchy being reprobated in scripture, I must observe that in the first epistle of Peter it is said "submit yourselves to eve­ry ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as unto those that are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well." Chap. 2. ver. 13, 14. The meaning of which words must be, I think every candid and intelligent person will allow, that we should not as Christians endeavour to overset a government, whether it is monarchical or republican, if that government is rightly ad­ministered. A little while after in the same chapter St. Peter says too "fear God, honour the king." ^* How can we honour the king if, according to the notion held out in a vain and silly letter written by Mr. Thomas Paine to the Abbé Sieyes, we reduce all kings to the state of private individuals? I therefore am of opinion that the first National Assembly of France (the constituent assem­bly as it is frequently called) were wise in not abolishing their mo­narchy, and I was happy to find that out of near a thousand mem­bers, only eight were of the same antimonarchical principles with Mr. Paine.

I will now consider whether it would have been wise in the peo­ple of France to preserve their nobility. I think it was unwise to abolish their nobility, as it might inflame the resentment of Eu­ropean Nations, lest such a spirit of innovation should reach their dominions, as a nobility well regulated might be of no disadvan­tage to the country, and as it might attach the nobility of France to the new establishment of political affairs. In the time of Charles the first, the republicans, as they called themselves, abolished in England, the monarchy in the family of the Stuarts, and the House of Lords.—And yet, so strangely inconsistent are mankind, they suffered the Long Parliament to vote themselves perpetual, to continue their seats in the legislature for ever unrevokable by the people. The advocates for this measure contended, that the unin­terrupted attention to business would better frame men to be legis­lators, than one that was discontinued at the caprice of others. They would not allow this argument to avail in favour of one branch of the legislature, the House of Lords, which they urged in favour of the House of Commons, the whole of the legislature, and of the government, at that time. These men, who would not have a monarch from the House of Stuart, set up at last a monarchy in the House of Cromwell. For names do not signify much with men [Page 25]of understanding. A man may have the power of a monarch with the name of protector. The result of all this was that the people of England grew sick of Long Parliaments which they could not controul, of hypocritical or weak protectors, (for Oliver was the one and Richard Cromwell the other) that they as eagerly desired their old noble constitution again "as the thirsty hart panteth for the water-brooks." Those who have read the English history well know that the nobility and the monarch made a common cause with the intelligent part of the nation, and at last re-established the ancient form of government. I wish, however, to be under­stood when speaking of these proceedings, that I am no advocate for the tyrannical measures of the first or second Charles, but for the English Constitution well altered and well administerd. It may happen in France, as it happened in England, that the discontent­ed nobility may league with the discontented monarch, and over­turn that government which was established to their disadvantage. Whereas, if the people of France had formed a system of govern­ment similar to the English constitution, the monarch would have had no reason to be discontented, the nobility erected into a sepa­rate branch of the legislature, and made hereditory counsellors of the kingdom, would have found themselves honoured with a new consequence, have found themselves and their country happier, and would generally have been inclined to support that new system of government. Some persons have a violent aversion to nobility which perhaps may not be strictly defensible. I confess myself I see no occasion for them in those countries where they have not before existed. Yet in those countries where they already exist, I would have the privileges of the order well regulated, and and not the order entirely abolished. Some of their titles may be ridiculous and improper. But I see nothing which gives great of­fence in Earl, which is derived from a Saxon word signifying Elder­man, or in Count, which is derived from the Latin word Comes, and fignifies, according to Bracton and Fleta, the fellow and compa­nion of a king. Some who call themselves republicans dislike the name of Earl, but are fond of Excellency, a very flattering title. It may with some appearance of reason be urged that taking away the privileges of nobility from a family, which have been gained by the valour, the wisdom, the integrity of their ancestors, is as unjust as taking away the money which they have gained in the same man­ner. If it should be observed, that titles may do mischief to man­kind, I will say the same of immense wealth. It may fairly, how­ever, be said that a nobility under proper regulations, may, in a country where a monarchy has been some time established, be of advantage to that country. There is something certainly in blood. There is some presumption that a valiant and generous father will beget a valiant and generous son. The qualities of the mind will often descend as well as the features of the face. The parent ani­mal generally gives its qualities to its off [...]pring. If the race-horse is not begotten of the race-horse, why do some persons, who are fond of the vicious custom of horse-racing, make such a clamour about their pedigree? Horace, was in many respects a judicious observer of human nature, says,

If we examine, for instance, the history of England and Scotland, we shall [...]i [...]d that the nobility of both those countries have fre­quently possessed an hereditary valor and generosity, and have de­served the [...]ono [...] and privileges which they possessed. In every in­vasion of the country, from the invasion of Julius Caesar to that of the Pretender Charles Stuart in 1745, and in every battle, where the forcer of those countries have been engaged, their nobility have manifested a distinguished courage and activity. In saying this, however, I wish to be understood that I am only an advocate for that valour which reason justifies. What a celebrated poet finely says to Lord Hay of his family, may be said of various other families in Britain.

It has been said by the advocates against nobility, that titles are harmless or absurd nick-names. If titles are harmless, it surely then is not worth the while to hazard a dangerous commotion in a state to procure their abolition. Nobility, however, upon the system of the English constitution, may not only be harmless, it may be advantageous to a monarchy. It may be given as the reward of patriotism and valour, and may excite to those noble virtues. An hereditary House of Lords also, upon the plan of the English con­stitution, might tend to benefit the state, by maintaining a proper [Page 27]balance, between the power of the crown, and the rights of the people. In England, if the constitution were properly administered, this hereditary House of Lords could never render any material in­jury to the interests of the people, as they could pass no act with­out the concurrence of the representatives of the people in the House of Commons. The government, therefore, thus balanced, has, ac­cording to the observations of learned and able politicians, the ex­ecution of the monarchy, the wisdom of the aristo [...]racy, and the popular virtues of the democracy. The privileges of the peerage (excepting its being hereditary) are not very great. Mr. De Lolme, in his admirable Essay on the Constitution of England says, "In case of a public offence, or even a simple breach of the peace, a poet may be committed till he finds bail by any justice of the peace: and peers are to be tried by the common course of the law, for all offences under felony. With regard to civil matters, they are at all times free from arrests; but execution may be had against their effects in the same manner as against those of other subjects." Chap. 18. This last privilege is not more than every citizen of Pen [...]syl­vania possesses, after he has taken the benefit of an act of insolvency. His person ^* if he has not acted fraudulently, is no longer liable to the arrest of his creditors. His goods only can be seized. If, how­ever, any one should object to some tyrannical principles in the statutes relative to the scandal of a peer, called scandalum magna­ [...]um, which statutes were made in the arbitrary reigns of Edward I. and Richard the second, I have no objection to their being re­linquished in England, and to their not being adopted in France. I have no objection to any proper abridgement of the privileges of the nobility in England or in France, but I think there should be a nobility as well as a monarch at this time in France. Where there is a monarch there should of course be nobles. It seems natural to expect such a gradation in a state. It is reasonable to wish it, ac­cording to the opinion of the ablest politicians, of Montesquieu es­pecially, who says that in a monarchy "The most natural, inter­mediate, and subordinate power is that of the nobility. This in some measure seems essential to a monarchy, whose fundamental maxim is, no monarchy, no nobility; no nobility, no monarchy." Spi­rit of Laws, Vol. 1. page 22.

If the constituent assembly of France had not made a decree for the abolition of nobility, the late revolution in that country would have found many more advocates in Germany and Spain, where the nobles are particularly fond of their high descent. It would have been politic to have attended to these prejudices, if they are to be called such. An attention to them would have made the principles of the revolution spread more easily in Germany, Spain, and other countries of Europe, and would have made it more secure at home. [Page 28]I could wish the nobility, as well as the monarchy, under proper limitations, to be restored in France, and the bloody and cruel lust for summary executions which has shown itself in that country to be utterly abolished. In these points I agree with the celebrated Mr. Necker, whom I hold in many respects to be a good man, and an able politician, I do not know that I can say I altogether co­incide with him, but I do considerably. If these things are not attended to, the new raised government may be like the house of Job, which, as we read in scripture, was smitten in its four corners, and levelled by a mighty wind from the wilderness. The French may in vain boast of the millions which they can bring into the field in support of the revolution, for some of those millions may prove like the elephants in ancient battles, which would sometimes turn upon those who led them on. The accustomed prejudices of the French are not easily eradicated; and in some future time, if they are not well managed, they may curse the National Assembly, and tear the air with the sound of Vive le Roy. I must observe, how­ever, that I am a friend to the revolution in many respects, but I wish it secured by every prudent measure. I admire above measure the demolition of the Bastille.

I admire also the abolition of lettres de cachet, of arbitrary imposts, of the game-laws, of tithes, of religious houses, and of the power of that heretic the Pope. In short, I will observe, that there are many things which I admire, and many things which I disapprove in the conduct of the French Revolutionists. I am neither led by Mr. Burke nor by Mr. Paine. I would wish to make neither of these men my Moses, from whom I am to receive the law, and whose sentiments I am to adopt.—This, however, I think is fairly to be said in favour of the new French Government, that if it has errors, the people who are now free, may alter those er­rors at a future and convenient time. They may alter their go­vernment, by assimilating it to the English constitution, in appoint­ing an hereditary House of Lords, and in the restoration of the constitution of 1789.—It has been said that the question, whether the constitution of England, with just amendments, would be a proper model of government for France at this time, is no questi­on at all that it will not admit of a doubt, that all mankind will agree in their opinion about it. In answer to which I will observe, that the National Assembly determined that they would not adopt the English constitution with or without amendments as a model of government for the people of France. The matter, therefore, has been a question with them, it has admitted of a doubt.

It has been said that the English have no constitution, and that they should call a convention of the people to make one.—There is to be sure no constitution in England written, like the constitu­tions of the States of America. Custom, however, has establish­ed a regular method of political proceeding in England, which is as binding as any written constitution whatever. The common law of England is founded in this manner upon custom, and is not written down. It is called the lex non scripta, the unwritten law; and the statute law, the lex scripta, the written law.—Yet no man will say that the unwritten law, founded on custom, is not as prevail­ing as the written law.—The constitution of England, however, does not, like the common law, merely depend upon custom, but is [Page 29]corroborated by the written law. There are various statutes which explain what the constitution is, which describe its limits. There is a Bill of Rights, which I cannot agree with Mr. Paine to be a Bill of Wrongs.—

If it should be observed of the French nobility, that they do not merit, from their own virtue or the virtue of their ancestors, to be erected into a separate and hereditary branch of the legisla­ture; I will answer, if we consult the History of France, we shall find that the nobility of France have sometimes shown themselves to be true friends to their country and to the interests of man­kind, though they have sometimes acted in an opposite charac­ter. In the contests between Catholics and the Hugonots the no­bility have taken different sides. We find, however, the name of Rochefaucault and some other French noble names, frequently on the side of virtue and glory. There is an hereditary valour and integrity in some of their illustrious families. Henry the IV. of France used to say, "I have greatly prevailed against my enemies "by the sword of my brave and generous nobility."—Many of the French nobility have also very powerfully contributed in the present day to the freedom of their country. I am an advocate, if an hereditary House of Lords should be erected, that only those peers should be admitted who would abjure the ancient tyranny, and en­gage to support the new system of freedom.

There would have been a fine opportunity of adopting at this time in France the English constitution without its defects. They might have had no bishops in their House of Peers, no rotten bo­roughs (through which, in England, one man alone will elect two members of parliament, while ten thousand or more electors, as in Westminster, can send but the same number to parliament) they might have had in every respect a pure representation of the people; they might have had annual parliaments, as was formerly the case in England, or at least biennial, with an universal toleration to all religious sects. If the new government had been thus framed, which is considerably according to the plan of Mr. Mounier, it is said that many of the emigrant nobility, would have returned with a determination to support the new constitution.

If the English constitution had been in any manner adopted in France, the English government would have been more inclined to support the revolution. Some, however, say that the French revolutionists need not fear the resentment nor court the concur­rence of England nor of all Europe. They have numbers sufficient to baffle all opponents. If we were to grant this, yet I would be an advocate, for the adoption of the English constitution in some measure in France. It seems suited to the genius of the country, as they have a monarchy and a nobility. It would tend to the in­ternal quiet and prosperity of the kingdom. It would prevent as­piring and ambitious men from deluging the land with blood in their attempts to possess the crown. It would chastise anarchy, as well as prevent ambition. I will make a quotation from a very able law­yer, Sir William Blackstone. He says, when speaking of the En­glish government, "Thus every branch of our civil polity supports and is supported, regulates and is regulated by the rest: for the two houses naturally drawing in two directions of opposite interest, and the prerogative in another still different from them both they [Page 30]mutually keep each other from exceeding their proper limits; while the whole is prevented from separation, and artificially connected together by the mixed nature of the crown, which is a part of the legislative, and the sole executive magistrate. Like three distinct powers in mechanicks, they jointly impel the machine of govern­ment in a direction different from what either, acting by itself, would have done; but at the same time, in a direction partaking of each, and formed out of all; a direction which constitutes the true line of the liberty and happiness of the community." Black­stone's Commentaries, Vol. 1. page 155.

Mr. Burke in many parts of his pamphlets speaks with high ad­miration of the English constitution. He will not recommend, how­ever, the adoption of it in France, lest such a constitution should be unfavourable to the power of the Roman Catholic clergy in France. Their interest seems to be very near his heart. He says in his se­cond pamphlet (a letter to a member of the National Assembly, in answer to some objections to his book on French Affairs) "I do not advise an House of Lords to you." Soon after he says "I, whose leading principle it is in a reformation of the state, to make use of existing materials, am of opinion, that the representation of the clergy, as a separate order, was an institution which touched all the orders more nearly than any of them touched the other; that it was well fitted to connect them, and to hold a place in any wise monarchical commonwealth." That monarchy and nobility have a connexion with each other I have often heard, but I do not see that a state religious establishment has any necessary connexion with a monarchy. It has been said that the great number of the French nobility would prevent their being established into an here­ditary House of Lords, like the nobility of England. This is a circumstance that might be easily remedied. Only those who would engage to support the new government might be admitted to their House of Peers. If there should be too many of these, it might be determined by lot, which should first succeed, and after an extinc­tion of some titles by death, the others might in the course of time succeed. Or an House of Peers might be made of the princes of the blood, and of the higher order of nobility, who had an hereditary right to seats in the parliaments of France. Those who would not abjure or affirm (for a choice in these points should be allowed, or religious liberty will be incomplete) against the supremacy of the Pope, should not be admitted. Nor would this be unjust. For he who wishes to make the Pope supreme ruler over his country, wishes to give the liberty and independence of his country into the hands of a foreign power, and is consequently a traitor and an enemy to that country. Mr. Locke says "That church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate, which is constituted upon such a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby, ipso facto, de­liver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country, and suffer his own people, to be listed as it were, for soldiers against his own government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the court and the church, afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person; who has not only power to persuade [Page 31]the members of his church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or as in order thereunto, but can also enjoin them on pain of eternal sire." See Locke's First Letter on Toleration, 2d. Vol. quarto, page 374. A salutary restraint, and no other, should be put upon Roman Catholics, where fears are rationally to be enter­tained of their overturning the government. But where no such fears can rationally be entertained, then I think they should be ad­mitted to the same political privileges with others. Mr. We [...]de­born in his late account of England, which is in several respects not injudicious, says, that there are no more than 16, 000 Roman Catholics in England. If that be the case, or if there should be no more than 160, 000, the penal laws against them might prudently be relaxed.

If an invasion of France were to be attempted upon the princi­ples of a manifesto which was published some time ago by the emi­grant princes at Coblentz, to restore the monarchy to its former uncontrouled despotism, and the Roman Catholic Church to its ex­clusive and tyrannical domination, then I think every Frenchman, in the just defence of his liberties, should have the same gallant spi­rit with my heroic relation, the celebrated John Earl of Crawford, (who, however, was sometimes too fond of war) of whom it is said in a classical elegy on his death, ^*

The summary executions which have been practised in France are injurious to the cause of liberty, and humanity, and to the interests of the country. They will cause emigrations from and prevent emigrations to France. The execution of the wicked and perfidious Launay, the governor of the Bastille, upon the spot, might have been commendable; but surely, in many [...]ases, the land has been pol­luted with blood from unnecessary or unjustifiable executions. It is now time to put a stop to any summary executions whatever.

I think with Mr. Burke, that the National Assembly deserved no encomium for raising a statue to the memory of Rousseau. He was in several respects a wild and vicious writer, though for some things which he wrote, he deserved applause. He was enthusiastic, eloquent, and generally perhaps disinterested.—His Eloisa is a most pernicious book. It would be difficult to find a more wicked and pernicious book, except it be the Sorrows of Werter. ^†

I conceive also the respect which has been publicly paid to the [Page 32]remains of Voltaire by the National Assembly to be disgraceful to them. Voltaire was a deist and a profligate debauchee ^*. His talents certainly were splendid. They have been over-rated and over-praised however; and talents, if improperly exerted, should not be admired. He would have done service to mankind by ridicul­ing superstition, if he had not attacked religion.

The French have made a violent and abrupt overthrow of their government, which has induced several to wish the same method of proceeding in England. The best way of reforming the English government, is not by the dangerous method of a convention, entire­ly to model the government anew, but by gradual reformations, while adhering to the great outlines of the constitution. It would be wise, however, to make necessary alterations in the government as soon as possible, to prevent the danger of commotions. The re­moval of the hereditary succession might deluge the land with blood, and afterwards leave matters in a worse state. If the pre­sent King, or any of his children after him, should be removed from the throne, after a civil contest, the successful general on the side of the people will probably become a favourite of the people and be raised to power. For the cry will be among them, we cannot do without a head: and it will be lucky if in­stead of a limited, they do not vex their country with a despotic monarch. De Lolme in his admirable essay on the English consti­tution, speaks sensibly of things in such a situation. "The power thus given away is already grown very great, before those by whom it was given so much as suspect it; and he himself who enjoys that power, does not know its full extent; but then, on the first op­portunity that offers, he suddenly pierces through the clond which hid the summit from him, and at once seats himself upon it. The people on the other hand, no sooner recover fight of him, than they see their favourite become their master, and discover the evil only to find that it is past remedy." Book II. Chap. II.

The people of England have known one Cromwell, and they will be very cautious how they suffer another to rise. He was a black­guard, but something of a hero it must be confess. He became at last, however, a tyrant, and his reflexion upon magna carta, was as arrogant and absurd, as it was indecent. There is somewhat in his character for the kings of England to imitate while they detest. He made the English name formidable at the courts of tyrants. The inquisition at Lisbon had seized and confined his minister. He de­mands redress from the court of Portugal. The answer returned is that the inquisition seized the man, and the king has nothing to do with the inquisition. Cromwell says, if that be the case, I will not make war upon the king, but upon the inquisition. The mi­nister is immediately released.

Mr. Paine, in his second pamphlet on the Rights of Man, says,

[Page 33] The civil wars which have originated from contested hereditary claims, are more nume [...], and have been more dreadful and of longer continuance than those which have been occasioned by elec­tion. All the civil wars in France arose from the hereditary sys­tem, or by the imperfection of the hereditary form, which admits of regencies, or monarchy at nurse. With respect to England, its History is full of the same misfortunes. The contests for succes­sion between the houses of York and Lancaster lasted a whole cen­tury; and others of a similar nature have renewed themselves since that period. Those of 1715 and 1745 were of the same kind." If we attend to the History of Rome under the emperors, we shall find that the Roman empire was frequently deluged with blood on ac­count of the contested elections to the empire. The greatest mis­chiefs attended the elections of the popes, the deys of Algiers, and of all the elective princes in the world. It would be tedious to mention the various instances. If we read Davila's History of the Civil Wars in France, we shall find that "the hereditary system, or the imperfection of the hereditary form," have had nothing to do with them. The civil war which arose for the succession in the houses of York and Lancaster was to be sure bloody and long. It may yield instruction in pointing out the unhappiness of a disp [...]ed succession to the throne of England. The succession is now indis­putable, upon the true principles of the English Constitution, in the illustrious house of Brunswick. To make it disputable, would hazard such another bloody contention as that between the houses of York and Lancaster. The wars which arose in 1715 and 1745, were not merely about the hereditary succession to the throne. The dispute in those years was considerably upon the point whether po­pery or protestantism should be established in Great Britain. The house of Brunswick were not elevated to the throne of Great Bri­tain for being Germans or foreigners; but for being the next in succession in the protestant line. Has Mr. Paine never read, or is he willing to forget, that the present king of Great Britain, is de­scended from the daughter of James the First of England?—Mr. Paine says, "Poland, though an elective monarchy, has had fewer wars than those which are hereditary." This seems not to be the truth. On the contrary, the unhappiness of Poland from her elec­tive monarchy, has become proverbial. The poet says:

Guthrie, in his Geographical Grammar says of the king in Po­land "they elect him on horse-back; and in case there should be a refractory minority, the majority has no controul over them, but to cut them in pieces with their sabres; but if the minority are suf­ficiently strong, a civil war ensues." The people of Poland had their­selves become so sensible of the mischiefs attendant upon an electvie [Page 34]monarchy that they lately determined to make it hereditary, when they were framing [...] new constitution, which alas! they are unhap­pily deprived of the opportunity of establishing.—I would recom­mend Mr. Paine, for his amusement, and his benefit, as he has set up for an author, to a course of reading. I would recommend his attention to the most approved historians and writers on politics, and above all to that excellent book, the Bible, which I am afraid he has never much considered, or he would never have said that all kings are reprobated in scripture.

Mr. Paine says (speaking of hereditary monarchy) "that the mental characters of successors in all countries, are below the ave­rage of human understanding; that one is a tyrant, another an idiot, a third insane, and some all three together; it is impossible to attach confidence to it, when reason in man has power to act." The English constitution suffers no tyrant, idiot, or madman, upon the throne. The law incapacitates all of them from the regal power.

Mr. Paine in his second pamphlet speaks of "the wretched sys­tem of a house of peers in England." There are certainly many improvements wanting to the system of a house of peers in England, yet I think the system itself should not be utterly abolished. Some have been fond of putting popery and nobility together; in which there is no connexion. Nor is there a connexion between no­bility and tyranny. The nobility in England and Scotland have often been remarkable for their love of liberty, and their opposition to the arbitrary vi [...]s of the crown. By whom was [...] the illustrious deed of freedom, the Magna Carta of England obtained but by the barons of England? Dr. Akenside who was an enthusiastic lo­ver of liberty, has in his poems an Inscription,

The Magna Carta of England secures some of the rights of the poorest subjects, as well as of the first nobility, by whom it was principally gained. Did not some of the old Saxon nobility that were settled in England (to whom the nobility that came in with William the Conqueror appear with much inferior lustre) oppose the usurpations of the Norman bastard, with conspicuous valour, and heroic perseverance? Among these were the earls of Lindissi, [Page 35]from whom the earls ^* of Crawford are descended, and who formerly possessed a large part of the county of Lincoln. They were driven from England to take shelter in Scotland, with the loss of their im­mense possessions, for their invincible love of freedom. Did not many of the nobility of England and Scotland procure the expul­sion of James the Second, and establish the revolution under William the Third? did they not drive the pretender and his popish adherents from England in 1745?—Are not some of them now conspicuous as manly and enlightened advocates for the general interests of man­kind? Some, however, I will allow to be remarkable for their vices. The expression of Mr. Burke relative to nobility, that it is "the Corinthian pillar of polished society" is not in my idea liable to just ridicule. It is an elegant expression which contains some truth.

The English constitution with three different branches of govern­ment seems suited to the genius of the English and French nation. I am not such a bigot to it, however, as to suppose that no form of government can be good which does not resemble it. A republi­can form of government is best suited to the genius of the Americans. It would be unwise to attempt the introduction of a nobility into the United States. It might be productive of the worst consequen­ces. They have never had a nobility, and therefore no injury ac­cures to the descendants of nobility, in establishing a government without them. The republican form may be best suited to the Cantons of Switzerland, and other countries. In short, where a monarchical or a republican form of government has been some time established, it appears wrong to introduce a change, from a mo­narchy to a republic, or from a republic to a monarchy.

It would not be unwise, perhaps, in the English government to form a house of peers, mingled with the Scotch and Irish nobility, and a house of commons freely and equally elected from the three kingdoms. If this system of consolidation should be inconvenient to Ireland on account of its separation by sea (which inconvenience has been thought too much of by many) it might happily be ef­fected in regard to Scotland. The treatment of Scotland is cer­tainly what cannot be defended. Why, in the name of common justice, and of common sense, is not Scotland, proportionably as well represented as England? Scotland sends to parliament 45 mem­bers and England above 500. Is England so much superior, that she merits more than ten times as numerous a representation? The peers of Scotland have not lost their right to be hereditary coun­sellors of the kingdom. Scotland made a treaty with England as an [Page 36]independent nation. It was never conquered. It could not, per­haps, from the daring temper of its inhabitants be ever conquered. The poet beautifully, and with some truth, calls it

If all the Scotch peers, instead of sixteen, were to sit in the Bri­tish house of peers, there would be a greater chance, though some of them may now act upon independent principles, of their being generally less influenced by the minister. In 1707, when the 22d article of the treaty of union came to be debated in relation to the number of representatives to be sent from Scotland to the parliament [...] Great-Britain, the duke of Athole gave in this protest. "For­asmuch as the peers of this realm, who are hereditary members of her majesty's great counsel and parliament, do hereby become elec­tive, and so her majesty is deprived of her born counsellors and the peers of their birth right; and whereas at present they are one hun­dred and sixty in number, they are by this article reduced to six­teen, which sixteen are to be joined to the House of Lords in En­gland, whose number at present consists of above one hundred and eighty, whereby [...] is plain that the Scots peers share in the legis­lative and judicative powers in the British parliament, is very un­equal to that of the English, though the one be representative of as free and independent a nation as the other, and is therefore a plain fourfaulture of the peerage of this kingdom, contrary to the honour of the monarchy, disgraceful to the kingdom, and prejudicial to the barons and burroughs of this realm." If all the Scotch peers were to be allowed a seat in the British House of Peers, and the repre­sentatives from Scotland to the House of Commons more numerous "it would infuse" (according to an admired expression of the late Lord Chatham) "a new portion of vigour into the constitution." It is said that in the multitude of counsellors is safety. In the mul­titude of representatives there is not only a greater chance of talents but of public virtue. It is obvious to common sense that it is ea­sier to corrupt a few than a great many. In short, the union be­tween England and Scotland should be upon a just and liberal plan of consolidation, without any partial, but with fair advantages to both parties. It is this which should best secure, what every good man must wish, the uninterrupted union and concord between the two nations, which tends to their mutual glory. It was well said of England and Scotland by the celebrated Lord Lyttleton, "whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder."

Ireland, if it is not consolidated with England, upon the same ^* [Page 37]plan as Scotland, should not be independent. Those who wish for the independence of Ireland upon England, that the cause of liberty may be advanced, are mistaken. If Ireland were at present inde­pendent of England, the cause of liberty would be materially inju­red. Some say there are eight or nine Roman catholics to one pro­testant in Ireland. The prevailing opinion is that the Roman ca­tholics to the protestants are as three to one. If therefore Ireland were made independent of England, the Roman catholics would have the ascendancy, the protestants would be obliged to fly the country, or another massacre might be made of them such as hap­pened in the time of Charles the First. Some protestants have con­ceived that the spirit of the Roman catholics is at present so mild as not to give much occasion for dread. If they were but for a short time under the mild dominion of some of the Roman catholics in Ireland, they would find such corporal exercise as they would with reluctance try again. They have sometimes put the protestants upon horses with saddles full of pricks. It is a notorious fact that in Ireland not long ago a protestant school-master was seized by the Roman catholics, who cut out his tongue, and cut off both his hands. Government very properly allowed him, though disabled from attending to the school, the salary which he formerly enjoyed. In a Dublin paper of October 11th, 1791, it is said, "By a let­ter from Armagh dated on Wednesday last, we are informed that as yet there is no prospect of the unhappy animosities which pre­vail in that quarter being terminated, notwithstanding the various prosecutions that have taken place at the late assizes. Religious intolerance prevails there with as unrelenting a zeal as ever disgraced this country at the commencement of the present century. Why should they act in a manner disgraceful enough to justify the reproach, that bigotry had fled from France to take refuge in Ireland?" There are a set of Roman catholics in Ireland called de­fenders, who say that the whole country belongs to the pope, and who will not suffer, wherever they can exert their blind and un­reasonable fury, a protestant to live unmolested. There are per­sons of veracity now living in Ireland who remember when a pro­testant was roasted alive by the Roman catholics. I wish to be un­derstood, however, when speaking of Ireland, that I am no advocate for its being oppressed, but for its being connected with England upon terms advantageous to both countries.

Mr. Paine says, that it is wrong to give the king of Great Bri­tain a million a year for his civil list. The salaries of embassadors, of the judges, and various other public expences, are paid out of this. Though it is not reasonable to expel kings from their thrones, without sufficient cause, yet they should be restrained from tyranny, and in some measure from extravagance. A proper sum of money should be allowed to them for the decent support of their dignity; but it is shameful in sovereigns wantonly to consume the goods of the earth in capricious excesses, as Mary Queen of Scots, (whom the celebrated reformer, John Knox, called a whore and a papist,) who used to have a bath of white wine. There were some admi­rable things in Mr. Barke's scheme of retrenching the expences of the Brit [...]h government. I have no private enmity to him. I cheerfully yield him my applause, wherever I honestly can. I think that he has splendid talents, and frequently good intentions. [Page 38]If any one will attend, however, to the history of the disputes in the Low Countries in the time of the emperor Joseph, in the Annual Register, published by Dodsley, of which history Mr. Burke is supposed to [...] the author, he will find that the writer has a strong inclination to [...]. He talks of the purity of the faith of the university of Lo [...]vaine, which has been always remarkable for its bigoted attachment to the See of Rome. The son of Mr. Burke was agent for the Roman catholics upon their application to the legislature in Ireland; and if report says true, his wife in a decided and open advocate for the Roman catholic persuasion.—I admire the zeal of Mr. Burke for the freedom and just welfare of the ne­groes. If tyranny founded upon the established laws and the an­cient constitution of a country, should not, however, be opposed, then the tyranny of the the slave-holders in the West-India islands and the southern states of America, should not be reprobared. I admire also, the eloquence and the information which Mr. Burke has exhibited relative to East-India affairs. The compliment which he has classically, but justly paid to the genius of his colleague, Mr. Fox, seems somewhat applicable to himfelf.

Mr. Burke, though he is no advocate for the principles of the English constitution, being adopted in France, has some merit for the praises which be bestows upon it. The great outlines of the English constitution are good, but it requires much amend­ment. He says finely, and with some truth of Montesquieu, "Place, for instance, before your eyes, such a man as Montes­quieu. Think of a genius not born in every country, or every time, a man gifted by nature with a penetrating aquiline eye; with a judgment prepared with the most extensive erudition, with a berculean robustness of mind, and nerves not to be broken with labour, a man who could spend twenty years in one pursuit. Think of a man, like the universal patriarch in Milton (who had drawn up before him in his prophetic vision the whole series of the genera­tions which were to issue from his loins,) a man capable of placing in review, after having brought together, from the east, the west, the north, and the south, from the coarseness of the rudest bar­barism to the most refined and subtle civilization, all the schemes of government which had prevailed amongst mankind, weighing, measuring, collating, and comparing them all, joining fact with theory, and calling into council, upon all this infinite assemblage of things, all the speculations which have fatigued the under­standings of profound reason [...] in all times! Let us then consider, that all these were but so many preparatory steps to qualify a man, and such a man, tinctured with no national prejudice, with no domestic affection, to admire, and to hold out to the admiration of mankind, the Constitution of England!" Montesquieu calls the English Constitution "a beautiful system." He says also, "It was a curious spectacle, to behold the vain efforts of the English to establish a Democracy." A curious spectacle it was indeed, (such as the French are now going to exhibit,) and I hope they [Page 39]never will present it a second time to the world. Nor is it much to be feared. The attempt might bring two bad things, one after the other, anarchy and despotism. The general body of the people of Gre [...] Britain are averse to such an attempt. The dis­senters, though they wish for complete religious liberty, admire the civil Constitution of England. The dissenters of Birmingham, in their address to the king [...] the riots, say, "assured not of our innocence alone, but out of [...]terable attachment to your august person, and to the succession of your royal house; we respectfully claim your majesty's continued protection and favour, and beg leave most earnestly to assure your majesty, we have no thoughts of disturbing the constitution. We are the descendants of those, [...] whom (as the annals of our country will testify) the revolution, which secured to your illustrious house the crown of these king­doms, was greatly indebted. The civil constitution of our coun­try is our pride and glory; which we have been taught from our infancy to revere, and which we would die to preserve." And Dr. Price, says, that one of the blessings of England is "that being in possession of the forms of an excellent constitution of go­vernment, any changes or improvements necessary to correct abuses and to give perfect liberty, may be grafted upon them without tu­mult or danger; whereas, other countries, wanting these forms, and being under the necessity of erecting a new constitution on the ruins of an old one, cannot acquire liberty without setting every thing afloat, and making their escape from slavery through the dangers of anarchy." It has been doubted by some, whether the wit of man could frame a better government for England than the English constitution. It is certain, however, that the wit of man could contrive a hundred things worse.

To return again to the affairs of France, I must observe the proceedings there have been so violent, that they portend some new revolution to be at hand. The execution of the king was unjust, and highly impolitic. It was expressly declared by the constitution of 1791 (the only one that, I have considered, in this pamphlet, as I think it the only form of government yet pub­lished to the world, which would probably give lasting happiness to the people of France,) that "the person of the king is sacred and inviolable." See Chap. 2. Sect. 1. It was also declared in the same section, "if the king put himself at the head of an army, and direct the forces of it against the nation, or if he do not op­pose by a formal act, any such enterprize, undertaken in his name, he shall be held to have abdicated." If, therefore, the king had done what was laid to his charge by the convention, [...] [...]ould not, in the first instance, if they had adhered to the principles of the constitution, have been put to death, but have only been made to abdicate. Louis the Sixteeth of France was similar in his cha­racter to James the Second of England. He was led, by Roman catholic priests, like James. He should in the same manner have been deposed, but not murdered, and the French crown, in imi­tation of what was done in England, should have been settled on the next heir who was less attached to the court of Rome. The representatives of the people of France were not free, at the time of the king's death. They were controuled by the Jacobin So­ciety, and the vote for his execution was probably forced at the [Page 40]point of the bayonet. There is not liberty in that country, where the represencatives of the people are controuled by any but the people themselves. The Jacobin Society had all the bad points of tyranny in them; they were secret, cruel, permanent, and not responsible. Mr. Necker, before the king's death, published a small pamphlet, the circulation of which was prevented in France, in which he declared there was a solemn agreement between the convention and the king, to which he was a witness, that in case of the king's acting contrary to the constitution, his person could not be endangered. Mr. Necker declares that the king would not have accepted the sovereignty under the constitution, if this had not been clearly stipulated.

Many of the French are inimical to Mr. Necker, from suppo­sing that he wished to introduce a government in France, similar to the government in Geneva. It is astonishing to find how much this idea prevails among those who are not in the lower stations of life, and who should be better informed. Mr. Necker ^* is a deci­ded advocate, (as may be made to appear, by various quotations from his writings,) for a monarchical government in France. He repeatedly observes that a republic can never be happily established there. He says in his "Essay on the True Principles of Executive Power in Great States," with much reason and truth. "The National Assembly of France, who were desirous, at whatever price, to obtain glory, and who now find themselves disappointed, had a path open before them, by which they might infallibly have arrived at the first object of their wishes. How splendid a part would have been assigned to them in the drama of nations, if when occupied in framing a code of laws for a great people, they had concentrated their scattered ideas, and had ranged themselves, so to speak, round the most distinguished political constitution of Europe, with the noble design of taking it for their model, and copying such parts of it as were applicable to France, and of which experience had evinced the utility! The English, for it will be presumed that it is of their government I speak, would them­selves have been eager to point out the corrections of which their political system stood in need, and every nation of the earth, at­tentive to the scrutiny which would have preceded the most august of adoptions, would have felt a consciousness that their interests were discussed by anticipation, since a similar political liberty once established among two rival nations, and these the first nations in Europe, this double example of liberty, without disorder, would have acquired such an authority, that, forcibly conveying with it the tide of opinions, it would have formed the destiny of the world." Vol. 1. page 395 and 396.

[Page 41] It would be [...] particular advantage to establish a government in France similar to the English constitution, as it might be the me [...] of conciliating the two nations, and preventing those dreadful wars which have raged between them. This could be effected, an en­raged democrat might say, by making the government of England similar to the republic established in France. For the obtaining which end, he would, perhaps, recommend the murder of all the royal family, and of all the nobility. Without the perpetration of this diabolical wickedness, (which would bring the vengeance of Heaven and of man upon all concerned in it) the erection of a de­mocracy would be as absurd in England as in France. The peo­ple in both countries have been accustomed to a king and nobility, and would never rest satisfied with their abolition. There would never be peace in either country from the attempts which would be made to restore their power, and therefore it seems the part of wis­dom to correct but not to extirp [...]te that power. Late political writers, however, of the first reputation, think with Cicero, that a constitution similar to that of England would be best for all the nations in the world. Machiavel says of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, "the wisest legislators therefore, being aware of these defects, never established any one of them in particular, but con­trived another that partakes of them all, consisting of a prince, lords, and commons, which they looked upon as more firm and stable, because every one of these members would be a check upon the other: and of those legislators, Lycurgus certainly merits the highest praise, who constituted an establishment of this kind at Sparta, which lasted above eight hundred years, to his own great honour as well as the tranquillity of the citizens. Very different was the fate of the government established by Solon at Athens, which being a simple democracy only, was of so short a continuance, that it gave way to the tyranny of Pisistratus, before the death of the legislator: and though indeed the heirs of that tyrant were expel­ed about forty years after, and the Athenians not only recovered their liberty, but re [...]established Solon's laws, and plan of govern­ment, yet they did not maintain it above a hundred years, notwith­standing they made several new regulations to restrain the insolence of the nobles, and the licentiousness of the commons; the necessity of which Solon had not foreseen: so that for want of tempering his democracy with a due share of aristocracy and princely power, it was of short duration in comparison of the constitution of Sparta." M [...] chiavel's Political Discourses upon the Decads of Livy, Book I. Chap. 2. Page 8 and 9.

The celebrated Algernon Sidney, who was falsely [...]pposed to be a republican, says "if I should undertake to say there never was a good government in the world that did not consist of the three simple species of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, I think I might make it good." See Sidney's Discourses on Government, Vol. 2. page 233. Afterwards he says, in the same page, "As for democracy, I believe it can suit only with the convenience of a small town, accompanied with such circumstances as are seldom found." I do not know that I can thoroughly accede to the obser­vations of Machiavel and Sidney, but will repeat, what I have be­fore observed, that it is in my opinion impolitic, where a monarchy or a republic has been established, to change from one to the other. [Page 42]I am an advocate, however, for all reasonable improvements, to both forms of government.

The doctrine which has lately been propagated in France, of a perfect equality among mankind, seems visionary and absurd. Men should be equal in their rights, that is, no one should be injured without being able to acquire a remedy from the law, but there cannot be an equality in property and many other things. In ma­ny cases there is a necessity for subordination. If every man is to be captain on board a vessel, the vessel will be run upon the rocks.

But the worst circumstances attendant upon the French revolu­tion are the wanton murders which have been committed. The Jacobin society assumed, like the Turkish despot, to be masters of blood. The doctrine of ^* assassination, which has been contended for by this society, strikes at all that is valuable and comfortable in human nature. Mankind should guard against it as against the pes­tilence. There have been many dreadful assassinations of late in France, but scarcely any can be more unjust than that of the duke of Rochefaucault. His blood, like that of righteous Abel, will call down the vengeance of Heaven upon his persecutors and mur­derers. As the poet says,

He was one of the most amiable of mankind. He was descended of a very illustrious family in France, who were famous for their at­tachment to civil and religious liberty. He was a philosopher of no common ingenuity; humble, humane, just, and disinterested; a friend to science, liberty, and mankind. He was one of the first to start up in opposition to that horrible system of despotism with which his country was oppressed; and laboured indefatigably in the formation of that excellent constitution which was begun in 1789, and accepted by the king in 1791. This is a constitution from which all the nations of the world may draw salutary princi­ples of government; though, it must be confess, it would have been more complete with a well-regulated House of Lords. In 1792, when he was going to seek a retreat at his estate in Normandy, a­mong his tenants, to whom he had behaved with a parental affec­tion, he was met by a great body of federates (those connected with the Jacobin society in Paris) and when making no resistance, he was taken from the carriage where he was fitting with his mo­ther and sister, and murdered in their view. It is particularly afflict­ing to [...] [...]on that some of his own tenants, who were deluded by the Ja [...], joined in this execrable murder. Scarcely less to be lament [...] the assassination of Count de Clermont Tonnerre, a man of [...]picuous talents, and of enlarged benevolence. But I could not find time to speak of the murder of the Princess de Lam­balle, [...] various others. The [...]der of this unhappy woman, accor [...] [...] the account of a g [...] man who was at that time in [Page 43]Paris, and an eye-witness to the transaction, was more babarous than has been represented in any of the news-papers. The being impaled alive was not the only cruelty and indelicacy which she suf­fered. William the Third carried on his designs against James the Second of England; he overturned a formidable tyranny and esta­blished liberty, without assassination. There was no occasion for it in France.

The French have been very injudicious in attacking the various nations of Europe. We were told by some, that the wars which had desolated the earth had arisen from the ambition of kings; yet no sooner do we see a republic attempted in France, than the nation aims at incessant contention and bloodshed, with or without reason, than it becomes like Ishmael "a wild man, whose hand was against every man, and every man's hand against him." The French should have remained quiet, for some time at least, and have established a good constitution of government. In this situation they would have done more by the pen in recommending the rational principles of liberty to the nations of Europe than by the sword. Instead of this, they have attempted (as Mr. Necker says) to instruct the world, "with the trumpet of discord, and from the towers of Babel."

Whatever may be the political upshot of the contest in France, the Roman catholic religion will never be again established there, or not established long, according to its former tyrannical superi­ority. The prophecies, agreeably to the interpretation of various protestant commentators of repute, signify that the time for the ut­ter abolition of the Papal power is near at hand. This appears highly probable to an intelligent mind from the present situation of things in the world. To the sacred prophecies, it becomes us, our Saviour says, to submit. It is also well observed by a wise man in modern times, "the authority of emperors, kings, and princes, is human. The authority of counsels, synods, bishops, and presby­terians, is human. The authority of the prophets is divine, and comprehends the sum of religion, reckoning Moses and the apostles among the prophets; and if an angel from Heaven preach any other gospel, than what they have delivered, let him be accursed. Their writings contain the covenant between God and his people, with instructions for keeping this covenant; instances of God's judg­ments upon them that break it; and predictions of things to come. While the people of God keep this covenant, they continue to be his people: when they break it, they cease to be his people or church, and become the synagogue of satan, who say they are Jews, and are not. And no power on earth is authorized to alter this covenant." See Sir Isaac Newton's Observations upon the Proph [...] [...] Daniel, page 14.

The French have erroneously supposed that they [...] at this present time, could annihilate the Papal power, and [...] city of Rome in ruins. The utter [...] [...]tion of the Pa [...]al [...] is to [...] effected by the ten ki [...] [...] [...]erly suppo [...] [...] have mentioned in the preceding [...] work. [...] com­mon sense will tell us, of t [...] [...] [...]nnot acco [...] [...] [...]ork until the others agree in pr [...] [...].

The celebrated historia [...] [...] tells us that a [...] [...] of Henry the IVth of France [...] posed the day wa [...] [...] [...]er [...] the Papal power would [...] [...]ed. Abo [...] [...] [Page 44]William the Third of England, the same hopes were entertained. It is natural for the human mind to an [...]ic [...]p [...]te the day of its destruc­tion. Wisdom, however, should instruct us not to attempt the final destruction of the Papal power until the time is fully ripe. The hour of its utter annihilation is coming, but not come; it is near at hund, but not upon us. If 1260 years are determined by the pro­phets of the Almighty for the usurpations of the Papal power, it cannot continue longer; and in a pre [...]ture attempt to extirpate it, we may be overwhelmed with ridicu [...] and ruin.

After the abolition of the Papal power, but not before, it may be prudent and just in France to extend her conquests. It is pro­phecied that, after this abolition, the Jews will be converted, [...]andr [...]e­stored to the land of their forefathers. The destruction of the Turkish power will follow that of the Papal. It is prophecied that the empire of Russia will be one of the great instruments in the de­struction of the Turkish empire. "And the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships." Daniel, Chap. 11. ver. 40. The empire of Russia is immense at this present time. It he is suf­fered some time hence still further to aggrandize herself by a lavish acquisition of Turkish provinces, she may endanger the balance of power, and the liberty, of Europe. To prevent this, the powers of Europe should conquer some of the Turkish provinces for them­selves. There is a certain odious crime, the disgrace of human nature, to which the Turks are extravagantly addicted ^*. This, with their belief in predestination, I conceive to be the true causes of that incessant plague which desolates their dominions.

The removal of the two accursed tyran [...]es, established by the Turk and the Pope, will be as agreeable in the moral world, as the coming of spring in the natural world [...] a long and severe winter.