clamours "for that which no man felt the want

of, and with care for freedom, which has never "been in danger?" Springs it from a due fenfe of that proud principle within us, which points at the right which every honeft individual has to rank with the loftieft of the fpecies, when measured by the standard of nature ?-or from that factious and difcontented fpirit, which prompts the worst of mankind to trouble. the repofe, and plunder the poffeffions of the beft? Comes it from true patriotifm, or from that party rage, which "robs it of its good name?" It proceeds from all these. But with refpect to Equality, on the literal idea, as the mob are encouraged for reafons they cannot penetrate, to conceive it, was there ever fuch a day-dream? To make the abfurdity more egregious, yet more palateable, it is called natural equality! Prepofterous as falfe! What, dear friend, in nature is equal? Survey her productions: from the first to the laft, from the most gigantic to the most minute, as well in animals as man, what is there which he has not created UNEQUAL, even by exprefs order of the Creator? And by that very inequality intending to promote the wisdom, force and felicity of the whole? Amongst the fishes of the fea, and the fowls of the air, and the beafts of the field, the grand

line of fubordination, drawn by nature, goes on. Would you give to the linnet the wing of the eagle, or to the turnfpit the fpeed of the grehound? To what end? Would not nature, by that exchange, be violated in her general laws, and would the beings themfelves be the better for it? Am I told, that all these creatures were put under the fubjection of man, and that he, as the lord of all below, can have naturally no fuperior but the God that gave him life. The argument refts then, it feems, on the natural equality of human creatures. Fallacious again. For of all the beings in the fcale of the univerfe, man,-if we except his origin, concerning the equality of which he has no more right to be proud, than the worm that devours his carcafe, is the moft fubject to the laws of natural in-equality. The point which places him at the top of the creation is certainly his foul; for his body, whether a masterpiece of beauty, or a mafs of deformity, is alike corruptible, and rather an object of humiliation than of triumph. But, were you difpofed to felect, from the diverfified works of nature, any fpecimen of her wonderful variety and irregularity, could you fix on any thing fo proper to difplay that irregularity, that variety, as the human mind? So far from there being herein an univerfal equality, there is nothing to une

qual amongst all the performances of Creation. The ftrength of the lion is not more remote from the feebleness of the gnat, nor the fwiftnefs of the rein-deer from the tardinefs of the fnail, than the distance between the power and weaknefs, velocity and flownefs of men's fouls and understandings. Nature, by uncontrolable laws, has established, that to one man fhould be given an head to plan, govern, and command; to another, hands to toil and obey. Innumerable are the gradations, from those who guide the helm of the ftate, to those who regulate the fteerage of a fimple fkiff, from the nobleft architect to the moft ordinary artificer. The harmonies of civil fociety are carried on by the joint affiftance of all these in their proper places; take them out of which, and tranfpofe them, put one into the ftation of another; and, in fhort, jumble them together, on the plea of natural equality, according to the new fyftem, and what refults from all this? What becomes of civil fociety, and of the world? Doth not fuch a farce upon the decent fubordinations and arrangements of nature, fill it with difcords, diforders, and death? Look into the page of ancient annals, and into the more fanguinary history of modern times-what do they exhibit but a tiffue of abfurdity, horror, and blood?

Can

Can it be fuppofed, that were thefe at length to fubfide, by the eftablishment of Republicanifm on the ruins of Monarchy, that the happinefs of mankind, which ought to be the aim and end of all governments, would be the effect? Let the toiling hand govern, and the, projecting head obey. Would not confufion be indeed confounded? Or fhall all men have an equal fhare in the direction of human affairs? Shall there be no governors, no governed? Shall families, focieties, ftates, and empires be without an head? Shall all be common right, and common fellowship? The comet, my friend, were it "to rufh lawlefs through the void," would not trail fo much mifchief in its courfe, as fuch a number of licentious orbits out of their proper fpheres. The wolves and tygers of the forefts acknowledge, it is true, no fuperior, and they fometimes troop, in grim affociation and fell banditti, to lay wafte the countries through which they pafs; they are, it must be owned, notable republicans, and are unanimous to deftroy whatever they meet with; but they destroy each other alfo; and are bad examples of the fuccefs of an univerfal republic, inftituted on the levelling principle. The wolves and tygers of human kind, if fuffered to roam through the wilderness of life, without any check on paf

fions more fierce and fatal than any beftial appetite-or, if controuled only by thofe laws. which are inftituted by what are called patriots, only because they avowedly differ from and oppofe any order in a creation that is fuflained. by order only-would foon make the universe more intolerable to its inhabitants, than any abuse which power has yet introduced into the government of the world; and the moft dif loyal being would again call out, like the frogs in the fable, for a king; and rather than any longer be left to the anarchy of being delivered over to themfelves, would pray for one tyrant, fuppofing no honeft prince would then accept of them, in exchange for an univerfe of defpots.

But farther, how egregioufly abfurd, my friend, is this new doctrine?

Are not all

Jarge bodies of men compelled to have governors and chiefs? And do not thefe imply command and obedience? and do not thefe argue in their very name and nature, authority and fubjection? What are the Admirals, Generals, Colonels, Captains, and Subalterns of the prefent French armies, but heads? What are the foldiers. and failors they govern or direct, but fubordinate members? In what confifts the difference betwixt thefe and former commanders, whether

minifterial