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 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. If you say that kings reign by a divine right, accounta ble 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 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! |