Imágenes de páginas

in the well-afforted warehouses of the diffenting congregations, Dr. Price advises them to improve upon non-conformity; and to fet up, each of them, a leparate meetinghoufe upon his own particular principles. It is fomewhat remarkable that this reverend divine should be fo earnest for setting up new churches, and fo 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 diffufion of truth, but for the fpreading of contradiction. Let the noble teachers but diffent, it is no matter from whom or from what. This great point once fecured, it is taken for granted their religion will be rational and manly. I doubt whether religion would reap all the benefits which the calculating divine computes from this "great company of great preachers." It would certainly be a valuable addition of non-defcripts to the ample collection of known claffes, genera and fpecies, which at prefent beautify the bortus ficcus of diffent. A fermon from a noble duke, or a noble marquis, or a noble earl, or baron bold, would certainly increafe and diverfify the amusements of this town, which begins to grow fatiated with the uniform round of its vapid diffipations. I fhould only ftipulate that these new Mfs- Johns in robes and coronets fhould keep fome fort of bounds in the democratic and levelling principles which are expected from their titled pulpits. The new evangelifts will, I dare fay, difappoint the hopes that are conceived of them. They will not become, literally as well as figuratively, polemic divines, nor be difpofed fo to drill their congregations that they may, as in former bleffed times, preach their doctrines to regiments of dragoons, and corps of infantry and artillery." Such arrangements, however favourable to the caufe of compullory freedom, civil and religious, may not be equally conducive to the national tranquility. Thefe few reftrictions

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

"Thofe who diflike that mode of worship which is prefcribed 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 fociety and the world." P. 18. Dr. Price's Sermon.

restrictions I hope are no great stretches of intolerance, no very violent exertions of defpotifm.

But I may fay of our preachers, "utinam nugis tota illa dedift tempora fævitia."-All things in this his fulminating bull are not of fo innoxious a tendency. His doctrines affect our conftitution in its vital parts. He tells the Revolution Society, in this political fermon, that his majefty is almoft the only lawful king in the world, be


caufe the only one who owes his crown to the choice of "bis people." As to the kings of the world, all of whom (except one) this archpontiff of the rights of men, with all the plenitude, and with more than the boldness of the pal depofing power in its meridian fervour of the twelfth century, puts into one fweeping clause of ban and anathema, and proclaims ufurpers by circles of longitude and latitude, over the who e globe, it behoves them to confider how they admit into their territories thefe apostolic miffionaries, who are to tell their fubjects they are not lawful kings. That is their concern. It is ours, as a domeftic interest of some moment, seriously to confider the folidity of the only principle upon which thefe gentlemen acknowledge a king of Great-Britain to be entitled to their allegiance.

This doctrine, as applied to the prince now on the British throne, either is nonfenfe, and therefore neither true nor falfe, or it affirms a moft unfounded, dangerous, illegal, and unconftitutional pofition. According to this fpiritual doctor of politics, if his majefty does not owe his crown to the choice of his people, he is no lawful king. Now nothing can be more untrue than that the crown of this kingdom is to held by his majefty. Therefore if you follow their rule, the king of Great-Britain, who most certainly does not owe his high office to any form of popular election, is in no refpect better than the rest of the gang of ufurpers, who reign, or rather rob, all over the face of this our miserable world, without any fort of right or title to the allegiance of their people. The policy of this general doctrine, fo qualified, is evident enough. The propagators of this political gospel are in hopes their abstract principle (their principle that a popular choice is neceffary to the legal exiftence of the fovereign magistracy)

magiftracy) would be overlooked whilft the king of GreatBritain was not affected by it. In the mean time the ears of their congregations would be gradually habituated to it, as if it were a first principle admitted without difpute. For the prefent it would only operate as a theory, pickled in the preferving juices of pulpit eloquence, and laid by for future use. Condo et compono quæ mox depromere pofim. By this policy, whilft our government is foothed with a reservation in its favour, to which it has no claim, the fecurity, which it has in common with all governments, fo far as opinion is fecurity, is taken away.

Thus thefe politicians proceed, whilft little notice is taken of their doctrines; but when they come to be examined upon the plain meaning of their words and the direct tendency of their doctrines, then equivocations and flippery conftructions come into play. When they fay the king owes his crown to the choice of his people, and is therefore the only lawful fovereign in the world, they will perhaps tell us they mean to fay no more than that fome of the king's predeceffors have been called to the throne by fome fort of choice; and therefore he owes his crown to the choice of his people. Thus, by a miferable fubterfuge, they hope to render their propofition fafe, by rendering it nugatory. They are welcome to the afylum they feek for their offence, fince they take refuge in their folly. For, if you admit this interpretation, how does their idea of election differ from our idea of inheritance? And how does the settlement of the crown in the Brunswick line derived from James the firft, come to legalize our monarchy, rather than that of any of the neighbouring countries? At fome time or other, to be fure, all the beginners of dynasties were chofen by those who called them to govern. There is ground enough for the opinion that all the kingdoms of Europe were, at a remote period, elective, with more or fewer limitations in the objects of choice; but whatever kings might have been here or elsewhere, a thousand years ago, or in whatever manner the ruling dynafties of England or France may have begun, the king of Great-Britain is at this day king by a fixed rule of fucceffion, according to the laws of his country; and whilft the legal conditions of the compact of fovereignty


are performed by him (as they are performed) he holds his crown in contempt of the choice of the Revolution Society, who have not a fingle vote for a king amongst them, either individually or collectively; though I make no doubt they would foon erect themfelves into an electoral college, if things were ripe to give effect to their claim. His majefty's heirs and fucceffors, each in his time and order, will come to the crown with the fame contempt of their choice with which his majefty has fucceeded to that be


Whatever may be the fuccefs of evafion in explaining away the grofs error of fact, which fuppofes that his majefty (though he holds it in concurrence with the wishes) owes his crown to the choice of his people, yet nothing can evade their full explicit declaration, concerning the principle of a right in the people to choose, which right is directly maintained, and tenaciously adhered to. All the oblique infinuations concerning election bottom in this propofition, and are referable to it. Left the foundation of the king's exclufive legal title should pafs for a mere rant of adulatory freedom, the political Divine proceeds dogmatically to affert, that by the principles of the Revolution the people of England have acquired three fundamental rights, all which, with him, compofe one system, and lie together in one short sentence; namely, that we have acquired a right


1. To choofe our own governors."


To cafhier them for misconduct."

3. "To frame a government for ourselves."

This new and hitherto unheard-of bill of rights, though made in the name of the whole people, belongs to those gentlemen and their faction only. The body of the people of England have no fhare in it. They utterly difclaim it. They will refift the practical affertion of it with their lives and fortunes. They are bound to do fo by the laws of their country, made at the time of that very Revolution, which is appealed to in favour of the fictitious.rights claimed by the society which abuses its name.

These gentlemen of the Old Jewry, in all their reafonings


P. 34, Difcourfe on the Love of our Country, by Doctor Price.

fonings on the Revolution of 1688, have a revolution which happened in England about 40 years before, and the late French revolution, fo much before their eyes, and in their hearts, that they are conftantly confounding all the three together. It is neceffary that we should separate what they confound. We must recall their erring fancies to the acts of the Revolution which we revere, for the difcovery of its true principles. If the principles of the Revolution of 1688, are any where to be found, it is in the statute called the Declaration of Right. In that most wife, fober, and confiderate declaration, drawn up by great lawyers and great statesmen, and not by warm and inexperienced enthusiasts, not one word is faid, nor one fuggeftion made of a general right to choose our own governors; to cashier them for misconduct; and to form "a government for ourselves."

This Declaration of Right (the act of the 1ft of William and Mary, feff. 2. ch. 2.) is the corner-stone of our conftitution, as reinforced, explained, improved, and in its fundamental principles for ever fettled. It is called " An act for "declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and for "fettling the fucceffion of the crown." You will observe, that these rights and this fucceffion are declared in one body, and bound indiffolubly together.


A few years after this period, a fecond opportunity offered for afferting a right of election to the crown. the profpect of a total failure of iffue from King William, and from the Princefs, afterwards Queen Anne, the confideration of the fettlement of the crown, and of a further fecurity for the liberties of the people, again came before the legislature. Did they this fecond time make any. provifion for legalizing the crown on the fpurious revolution principles of the Old Jewry? No. They followed the principles which prevailed in the Declaration of Right; indicating with more precifion the perfons who were to inherit in the Proteftant line. This act alfo incorporated, by the fame policy, our liberties, and an hereditary fucceffion in the fame act. Instead of a right to choose our own governors, they declared that the fucceffion in that line (the proteftant line drawn from James the Firft) was abfolutely neceffary" for the peace, quiet, and fecurity

" of

« AnteriorContinuar »