why men have been so long banded into parties. In every age, there are certain interminable questions which are always debated and never settled, and which will continue to employ the ingenuity, and excite the passions of mankind, until Infinite Perfection takes the reins of government into his own hands, and all debate is lost in the perfection of his sway. Respecting the origin of government, there appears to be two theories, the one or the other of which you must adopt, as there is seen no possible third supposition. You must either say, with Filmer and all high tories, that kings reign by a divine right, and all popular privileges are a concession from their goodness; or you must conclude, with Hooker and Locke, that all government is founded on consent; it origi nated from the people, and is a power held in trust; and if so, it may be abused, it may be forfeited, and the people may resume their rights. This lays a broad foundation for republicanism. Now whichever of these theories you adopt, you may make a train of deductions from them, by the strictest logic, which is utterly inconsistent with the welfare of mankind. you say that kings reign by a divine right, accountable indeed to God, but to no lower power, why then, see! you establish tyranny; every invasion on the prerogatives of the most absolute despot, unless he consent, is an usurpation; and the people are nailed down to a servitude which no wisdom can soften, and no time remove. The Dey of Algiers must reign

If

forever; he must riot in blood, and the people must submit. If, on the other hand, you say that the chief magistrate holds his power in, trust, and the people may resume their delegated rights, it then becomes a question, when; how; in whose judgment; has the trust been forfeited, and who shall say when the power shall be resumed? If you answer with Dr. Paley, that each man must judge for himself, (and there appears on these principles no other answer possible, why, then, see! what a string of consequences you open to mankind. Carry these principles out, and I see not how any government can stand. For as soon as its laws pinch on my interest, I denounce their justice; I say the trust is forfeited ; I resume my original rights. The people are the judges in the last appeal, and I am one of the people. On these principles, popular commotions are vindicable; Lynch law becomes the last resource of justice; and as soon as the sovereign mob choose to say that magistrates are useless, and courts have abused their trusts, how will you cross their path by your general principles? They only teach that the sovereign people, free, enlightened, and competent to their high station, are the sources of all power, and were sent into the world to judge of their rulers, and not to obey them.

Such is the difficulty of founding politics on general principles, so clear, that no bad deduction can be made from them. You must take your choice between these two theories; and yet of these two

only schemes, the one leads to anarchy, and the other to despotism; the one is a river that stagnates and fills the atmosphere with putrefaction; the other is a torrent which roars to destruction.

Of all the great men who have looked down on the sphere of politics, from a throne of light, it appears to me that Edmund Burke was one who had his mind most stored with general principles. It is well known that this great man was charged with inconsistency; though, I suspect, that his was the inconsistency of the boatman, who leans to the one or the other side of his skiff, as he sees it incline by the passengers, or dip in the waves. When he considered the influence of the crown as too strong, he was on the side of liberty; and when he saw French principles breaking in like a torrent, he changed his ground only to meet the change of circumstances. This, I consider as the truest consistency. But perhaps part of that wise man's deviations in principles, is owing to the fact, that in politics, no general principles can be found which suit all occasions; and that God has decreed that we should feel our way through fragmen tary knowledge; and that to complete a system, is a proof rather of the ambition, than of the wisdom of him who attempts it.

If the subject were not so delicate, I might show the same thing in theology. You must either admit or deny the foreknowledge of God; yet what a train of deductions can be made from either of the postulates of this dilemma !

There is one general principle that is now setting our land on fire. All men are born free and equal, have certain inalienable rights; and therefore it is wrong for man to hold property in man. Slavery is a sin, and ought immediately to be abandoned. But surely these principles, so clear in their abstraction, so congenial to the purest sentiments of liberty and religion, cannot be maintained, as justifying certain obvious deductions, independent of all the conditions of time and place. In Algiers, I may say, that all men are born free and equal; but if I proceed to strip the Dey of his usurped power, and restore the people to their original rights, without instruction, without preparation, I shall only change a government which accomplishes the objects of government imperfectly, for anarchy; and I shall fill the streets with blood. So with respect to the other part of these propositions. Slavery is a sin, and ought immediately to be abandoned. I suppose any rational man would say that the word ought, refers only to what is possible; for, impossibilium nulla est obligatio, there is no obli gation which binds to impossibilities; and in a vast political movement, I take it, an impossibility is, that the instant removal of which will be attended with greater evils than the temporary continuance. At any rate, let a man beware, because a principle is clear in the abstract, that it is therefore equally clear in its application to every possible, practical case. The maintaining of which position has been the

source of half the political and moral delusions which have distracted our earth.

The object of these remarks, is not to prove the entire uselessness of general principles, even when they are most general. They certainly show an object on one side, or rather on one point, and will always be followed out by all analytic minds. I only wish to remind all lovers of them, that the most general side is always the darkest; that it teaches us the least of the nature of an individual thing; and that the value or worthlessness of general principles, always depend on the application a man makes of them; and he is never to be charged with an application which he disavows. O how much charity would this single recollection spread through the world! It would be oil to the breakers of a troubled sea.

We are living in a very excited age, and an excitement which comes, as usual, from some metaphysical principles. We are treading the old track, and are fighting because our maxims are too general to be fully understood. The cloud is dark, and is therefore surcharged with thunder. Would it not be well for us to remember the words of one of the wisest politicians that ever brought the dictates of philosophy to calm the passions of mankind. "I cannot," says Edmund Burke, "stand forward and give praise or blame to any thing which relates to human actions and human concerns, on a simple view of the object, as it stands stripped of every relation, in all the