ments of God; confounding the author with his work, he made man, and all material things, but particles of the Deity; certain deductions were made of himself, or followers from this system, which struck mankind with horror. A pious divine of our own country, given too much perhaps to abstract speculation, approached very near to the same general principle. He too, taught, that all we see, and are, are in a sense but the developments of God. But his deductions were pious, and his general principles were embraced by a numerous class of devoted Christians. In the days of the French Revolution, thrones were overturned, churches robbed, the nobles chased from the land, property confiscated, and the sanctuary of private rights invaded by the rude hand of ruffian violence, under the shelter of the general principles of liberty and equality. I too, believe in liberty and equality; and adopt these words in what I conceive their most rigorous sense. I believe it is departing from the principles of equality, that our land is now suffering all the evils that open upon us, and will open us, until we learn to make wiser deductions from this noble principle. For what is liberty? Not the liberty to do wrong. What is equality? Not the equality of property, but of rights. Now when we can found our republic on strict equality, the only equality which justice allows-that is, when those men only vote in the disposal of property, who have property at stake; our frame of government may stand, and not before. Universal suffrage is one of the grossest violations of political equality; and unless it is restrained, or modified, our liberty will be destroyed. But we see, at any rate, that the truth of the principle depends on the deductions we make from it. The light of the sun will be colored by the glass through which we permit it to enter our room. THE PURITAN. No. 32. He could raise scruples dark and nice, As if divinity had catch'd The itch, on purpose to be scratch'd; Hudibras, Canto I. THUS we find the value of general principles have been vastly overrated; their inclusiveness diminishing their perspicuity, and leaving room for a diversity of deductions, according to the fancy or prejudices of the holder. If we should suppose a candle placed before a female domestic, and ask what point of knowledge was most valuable to her, as to any use which she could apply it, we shall find, that what she needs to know is, that the object is a candle; that is, a substance made of tallow, and a cotton wick, and that it will burn and give light on the application of fire or a match; and if you go higher in the generic scale, in proportion as you ascend, you communicate a kind of knowledge she is less and less interested to acquire. You may tell her that it is a compound of animal and vegetable matter; very well, the knowledge is of some importance; it may teach her the source from which candles are derived, but hardly how to light them: or, you may tell her that it is matter; very well, that teaches her to distinguish it from spirit: or, you may say it is a created substance; that will teach her not to be a Spinozaist. But every step you take in the ascending scale, you depart from those qualities which bear on practice, and constitute real knowledge. Just so it is in intellectual generalization; what we are most interested to know, is the nearest class to which they belong. It is a matter of gratitude, that the useful is most clear. To illustrate the vagueness of the most general principles on which philosophy attempts to build her splendid but changing fabrics, it may be remarked, that though volumes have been written on politics, and the most comprehensive minds have encountered the theme, yet they have never been able to build up a consistent system as a legitimate deduction from first principles. This is one of the chief sources of the perplexity of the subject, and may be one reason 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 originated 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 |