point of doctrine. Men are bound to pay God a reasonable service, whether they will or not. A wife is bound to obey her husband in all reasonable things, whether willingly or unwillingly. And subjects are bound to obey their sovereign in all reasonable and lawful things, however averse they may be to it. Nor is it less absurd to make a lawful sovereign's claim to the obedience of his subjects depend upon their will, than to make the right which a husband has of ruling his wife depend upon her caprice, or the right which God has to our adoration turn upon our consent. Nevertheless, if wives will absolutely refuse to submit to their husbands, sinners to their God, and subjects to their king, they can shake off the yoke of subjection, and affect domestic, religious, and civil independence. But then the purposes of marriage, religion, and government are defeated, and a threefold rebellion takes place.

It will be proper here to trace back to its source the error about liberty, which Dr. Price has adopted from Rousseau, the great Geneva patriot; a fatal error this, by which that fanciful politician has kindled the flame of discord in his own country. This error consists in inferring, that, because a savage, who lives alone in a wood, is his own governor, and can legislate for himself, a man who lives in civil society can do the same. But is not this as absurd as to suppose, that because a man who is not listed, and of course is under no military government, can go backward or forward when he pleases, therefore a soldier in the field of battle has a right to legislate for himself, and advance or retire just when he thinks proper?

I grant that if a number of savages, living like wild beasts without religion, marriage, and government, could be prevailed on to enter upon a religious, conjugal, and civil life, among all the religions, women, and governments which they could choose, they might undoubtedly choose those which they thought best. This, after a close inquiry, would be both their right and their duty. And suppose they had mistaken idolatry for religion, an incestuous union for marriage, and tyranny for government, they would be bound to alter their plan, because such

capital mistakes are destructive of the salutary ends proposed in religion, marriage, and government. Again: when they had agreed to embrace a religious, conjugal, and civil life, they might agree to worship God standing or kneeling, in open air or in a church, in hymns or in prayers, &c.; they might agree to marry before two witnesses, or two hundred, and to do it by giving and receiving a ring, or only by joining hands; and they might embrace a monarchical, aristocratical, or democratical government; or they might, as the English have done, combine those three sorts of governments, and submit at once to a king, an house of lords, and an house of commons. But if they had once espoused a true religion, lawful wives, and a lawful government, they would sin against God, their neighbour, and their own souls,-they would be guilty of impiety, adultery, and rebellion,-if they wantonly changed their religion, their wives, and their sovereign. The reason is evident. Men who never had any

religion, wife, or sovereign, are tied to no religion, wife, or sovereign. But as soon as they are bound by sacramental ordinances to profess a certain religion; by conjugal promises to cleave to a certain woman; and by oaths of allegiance to submit to a certain sovereign; they are highly guilty if they break through their engagements without a capital reason. I say, without a capital reason; because, as God allows divorce in case of undeniable adultery, so he permits our renouncing a church undeniably and capitally corrupt, and our withdrawing from a government undeniably and capitally tyrannical. I lay a peculiar emphasis upon the words undeniably and capitally, to make room for the scriptural doctrine which you advance, "The personal vices of our governors, and any slight error in their administration, will not justify our resisting them," page 66; much less will an imaginary error or a groundless suspicion do it. And of this nature are undoubtedly the American conceits, that reasonable, legal taxes are not due by subjects to the supreme power which protects them; that a direct and equal representation in parliament is constitutionally necessary to the lawfulness of a money-bill; and that the British legislature uses the colonists in a

tyrannical manner, because it insists upon satisfaction for the depredations wantonly committed by the mobbing Bostonians. From the whole, I hope I may safely conclude, that the foundation of Dr. Price's peculiar patriotism is laid in a gross mistake,-a mistake which consists in confounding the lawless liberty of a savage who lives under no sort of government, with the lawful liberty of a subject who is protected by a civil government; and that government, instead of being the creature of the people, or the result of a convention between them and their rulers, is the creature of God, and, when considered in the theory, is the cause, and not the result, of such a convention as the doctor speaks of.

You continue to quote him thus: "It is a doctrine which avowedly subverts civil liberty." Page 69. No: it is a doctrine which avowedly secures a due submission to the governors that guard our civil liberty. "It represents mankind as a body of vassals, formed to descend like cattle from one set of owners to another, who have an absolute dominion over them. It is a wonder, that those who view their species in a light so humiliating should ever be able to think of themselves without regret and shame." This argument appears to me illogical and invidious. 1. Illogical: logic forbids us to alter the terms of a proposition. This Dr. Price does when he substitutes the word "absolute dominion," for reasonable dominion, which our doctrine requires. I am so far from asserting that human sovereigns have an "absolute dominion" over their subjects, that I steadily oppose the pretended orthodoxy of the men who ascribe such a dominion to God. I need not inform either you, sir, or Dr. Price, that there are divines in England who teach that God's dominion over his unborn creatures is so absolute, that he not only can but does absolutely reprobate some of them, and appoint them to unavoidable and eternal ruin, before they hang yet at their mother's breast; nor need I remind you, that, in opposition to these men, I assert that God's sovereignty, far from being thus absolute, is always circumscribed by his goodness, wisdom, and justice. 2. The doctor's argument is, I fear, invidious. What would he

think of my candour, if, treading in his steps, I reflected on the subordination of wives to their husbands, soldiers to their generals, flocks to their pastors, servants to their masters, and creatures to their Creator, in the same manner in which he reflects on the subordination of subjects to their sovereigns? I shall apply his argument only to the case of married women, thus: "The doctrine of the reasonable dominion which all husbands have over their wives, represents womankind as a body of vassals. And those who marry two or three husbands one after another, are formed to descend like cattle from one owner to another, who has an absolute dominion over them. It is a wonder that those who view their sex in a light so humiliating should ever be able to think of themselves without regret and shame." For my part, far from being brought over to American patriotism by this logic, I think it is a wonder that reasonable and good men should ever be able to think without regret and shame upon the public encomiums and rewards with which they have crowned such illogical and dangerous arguments.

The rest of your quotation from Dr. Price is an insinuation, that arts and sciences flourish no more in a country where the people submit to a monarch who will be obeyed, whether high republicans will submit or not. The whole of his argument is summed up in these concluding lines: "With what lustre do the ancient free states of Greece shine in the annals of the world! How different is that country now, under the great Turk! The difference between a country inhabited by men, and by brutes, is not greater." I am not for an absolute monarchy. I repeat it, the English constitution, which places the legislative power in a king, a body of patrician senators, and an house of plebeian lawgivers, appears to me the most perfect upon earth; because it collects in one political focus all the advantages of the French monarchy, the Venetian aristocracy, and the new American democracy. Nevertheless, as a lover of truth and matter of fact, I shall venture to propose some queries relative to Dr. Price's insinuation. What people are more self-governed, or more free from supreme authority, than the Hottentots? and

what people come nearer than they to the wildness and stupidity of brutes? Were not the Lacedemonians, with all the ado they made about liberty, surprisingly regardless of arts and sciences? Did not learning so flourish in Egypt and Babylon, under absolute princes, that the Greeks formerly went there for improvement, as we now do to our renowned universities? When did arts and sciences flourish more in Judea than in Solomon's reign? and who ever was a more absolute monarch? When did they reach a higher perfection in Rome, than under the reign of Augustus? And yet Augustus was a despot. What king ever ruled the French with an higher hand than Lewis XIV.? And was it not under his reign, that the French literature shone in her meridian glory? When did Russia emerge out of a sea of barbarity and rude ignorance? Was it not when Peter the Great, her despotic emperor, lent her his powerful hand? And do not at this day arts and sciences continue to make rapid progress there, under the patronage of the present despotic empress? What people are under a more absolute government than the Prussians? And in what part of Germany do the belles lettres flourish more than in Prussia? If Dr. Price does these hints justice, he will own, that an high monarchical government is at least as favourable to the improvement of arts and sciences, as an high republican administration. But I repeat it, the middle constitutional way is preferable to both those

extremes.

You favour me with another quotation from Dr. Price. The doctrine of it centres in the last paragraph, which runs thus, “All delegated power must be subordinate and limited." Granted. All governing power is delegated from the King of kings, and therefore it is subordinate to him, and is limited by the bounds which he has fixed, that is, by reason, scripture, and the apparent good of the people. The doctor goes on, "If omnipotence can, with any sense, be ascribed to a legislature, it must be lodged where all legislative power originates; that is, in the people." Page 73.

This is a groundless supposition, which the doctor and