SECT. II.

THE maxims, which the preceding reafonings are calculated to establish, are, that we shall rarely be in the right in allowing ourselves to fufpect the fincerity of others in the caufe to which they profess adherence; that nothing can be more various than the habits of different minds, or more diverfified than their modes of contemplating the fame fubject; that nothing can be more deceitful than the notion, fo general among fuperficial thinkers, that every caufe but their own is deftitute of any plaufibility of appearance; and that we can never have a juft view of the fincerity of men in opinions we deem to be abfurd, till we have learned to put ourselves in their place, and to become the temporary advocates of the fentiment we reject.

It may be useful to illuftrate thefe propofitions by a specific instance.

The controverfy at prefent moft vehemently agitated, is that between new and old fyftems of political government. The advocates of both parties for the moft part fee nothing, on the fide

adverfe

adverse to their own, but wilful perverfeness. They cannot believe that their opponents are fincere and ardent well-wifhers to the happiness of mankind. All they difcern in one cafe, is a fpirit of monopoly and oppreffion; and in the other, is a discontented heart, anxious to gratify its cravings by the moft rapacious and dishonest means. If each party could be perfuaded to see the principle of controversy in the other in a favourable light, and to regard itself and its opponent as contending by different modes for the fame object, the common welfare, it would be attended, in this great crifis of the moral world, with the happieft effects.

We will take it for granted for the prefent that the innovators have the right side of the argument, and will exhibit certain confiderations calculated to evince the fincerity and good intention of their adverfaries. The inftance adduced therefore will be fomewhat better adapted for the conviction of the former than the latter.

It be laid down as an axiom that the enmay lightened advocate of new fyftems of government, proceeds upon the establishment or af fumption of the progreffive nature of man, whether as an individual, or as the member of a fociety. Let us fee how far the principal cham

imitate them. Not imitate them by fervilely treading in their steps, but by imbibing their fpirit. Thofe of our ancestors who are most highly applauded, were judicious and successful innovators. They realised for mankind what had not previously been attained.

The rational and fober innovator ought to admit, that innovation is a measure attended with peculiar peril, that it should be entered upon with caution, and introduced in portions, fmall and detached. This is the point, in which the wisest of both parties might learn to agree.

ence.

The alarm of the oppofite party is by no means unfounded in truth. All men love independThis is a laudable paffion. All men love power. This is a more questionable propenfity. From these paffions taken together, united with the actual imperfections of the human mind, arifes the neceffity of political reftraint. The precautions that are neceffary for the preservation of property, co-operating with the low propenfities of selfishness and ignorance, produce a great inequality of poffeffions; and this inequality is inevitably the fource of much heart-burning and animofity.

The evils here alluded to, might perhaps, all of them, have been prevented, if men had been willing to form themselves into small commu

nities,

nities, inftead of coalefcing into great nations *. But if they had always been contented with this, would the arts and improvements of mankind, which eafily go on when once originated, have ever been called into exiftence? There are many things, not abfolutely good, which have been good temporarily and under given circumftances. Perhaps luxury, that luxury which is incompatible with a pure and elevated morality, is an inftance of this.

But, granting for a moment that the coalition of mankind into great nations ought never to have taken place, this does not alter the question before us. This coalition actually exifts. It conftitutes a ftate exceedingly artificial. It is at war with the strongest propenfities of individual man. It therefore requires great caution and extreme vigilance to maintain it. There is probably however not a political theorist in existence, who would fay, that it ought to be totally and immediately deftroyed. There is not a fober man in the world, with nerves ftrong enough calmly to face the tremendous iffue.

The advocate of establishments fays, We have already gained much; the fpectacle of human

*Political Juftice, Book V, Chap. XXII, octavo edition: † Political Juftice, Book VIII, Chap. VII, octavo edition. fociety

Y

fociety exhibits much that is admirable; I cannot confent that all this fhould be put to hazard for the fake of an untried experiment: Let us be aware of our true intereft; let us be contented with the things that we have. Surely this man may be eminently both honeft and philanthropical.

The rational advocate of new systems of government, would touch actual inftitutions with a careful hand. He would defire further changes and fresh improvements; but he would confider the task of innovation as an arduous business, nor is there any thing that would excite more the apprehensiveness of his mind, than a precipitate and headlong spirit.

There is nothing perhaps that has contributed more to the introduction and. perpetuating of bigotry in the world, than the doctrines of the Chriftian religion. It caufed the spirit of intolerance to ftrike a deep root; and it has entailed that spirit upon many who have fhaken off the directer influence of its tenets. It is the characteriftic of this religion, to lay the utmost stress upon faith. Its central doctrine is contained in this fhort maxim, He that believeth, fhall be faved; and he that believeth not, fhall be damned. What it is, the belief of which is

*Mark, Chap. XVI, ver. 16.

faving,